Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Global warming! A raging issue that has become one of the signature issues representing the metaphorical and philosophical divide fracturing America. On both sides the groups have sectionalized themselves off into factions that would make James Madison roll over in his grave. In the left corner the scientists and the environmentalist, railing against – what they see as – the further desecration of the natural environment and humanities pollution laden march to imminent apocalypse. In the right corner the Evangelical Christian Right and a few other patches of the Republican Party claiming that the science behind global warming is false and polluting the atmosphere does…no damage….to the Earth.

Each group proclaims a monopoly on the correct “science,” with both constantly striving to discredit the other. Is Global Warming a real threat or is it simply the paranoid rant of some dope smoking tree hugger, as the right would have you believe? And if this threat is scare propaganda, what exactly is the endgame for the left?

When George Bush led us into his war of personal gain and vendetta — creating his own make believe threat – his motivation was clear and distinguishable. He is an oil barron and there is quite a bit of oil in the Middle East. One can easily see why it behooves a President who is a champion for the Petroleum industry to try to assert as much American influence and control as possible in a region that is so rich with the desired resource.

But with global warming the reasons for creating a fictitious threat are less clear. This gets to the heart of the true issue behind the debatable positions as they are related to global warming. In short, why is this debate even occurring? What could the left possibly gain – other then the satisfaction of trying to save the planet – from alerting the population to this potentially catastrophic issue.

This question needs to be examined closer and expounded upon. Why does the Right, and particularly the Evangelicals, have a problem with the idea that global warming is real? What exactly do these people have to gain by disproving the idea that polluting the atmosphere is harmful to the ecological health of the earth? In fact, what exactly is their counter argument? That polluting is harmless?

Now, when you ask a global warming non-believer this general line of questioning they will most likely launch into some “pseudo-scientific” diatribe about warming cycles and how the earth has always been heated in small increments, ect.

Let’s say, purely for examinational purposes, that the warming unbelievers are correct and the earth has always been warming, or gone through cycles, or whatever they are barking at the pulpits this week. What direction then, as a country, do we move in with our environmental policy if this is true? Do we completely lift all emissions restrictions, allowing companies to pump whatever they want into the atmosphere? If global warming is a fake concept it wouldn’t really seem to matter. In fact, taking away those restrictions would….probably save….big business…….a lot of money. Ah Ha!

Suddenly we’ve stumbled upon a profound concept that both sides seem to be unwilling to acknowledging or, in the Democrats’ case, are completely ignorant towards. The less environmental restrictions there are on corporate entities in the United States the lower the overhead operating costs for said companies. This is a basic economic concept; it is not a secret nor is it a liberal or conservative perspective or bent.

One of the draws for corporations of outsourcing to third world nations, in addition to the lack of labor laws, is the near total lack of environmental restrictions on emissions and waste disposal. This, coupled with the fact that companies pay workers far lower wages and are able to completely eliminate the factor of unions and their effects on a balance sheet from the equation, makes it completely impossible for an American company to not outsource and yet stay competitive in the world economic theater, especially with the current U.S. economic and trade policies and the conditions they’ve created.

Let’s return to our fanatical friends, the Christian Right. They, as a group, have been some of the most vocal opponents of the idea of global warming. It is reasonable to understand, given their very public religious positions, why politically the Evangelicals are bigoted against homosexuals; their perverted “literal” bible interpretations tell them they should be and they are programmed to comply.

Also understandable is their hang up with evolution — carbon dating is wrong, man lived along side dinosaurs, the world is only 325 million years old — it goes against their omnipotent creation in seven days theory that is so much more plausible than, say, poisonous gas trapping the sun’s rays in the atmosphere and heating the earth – but I digress.

The Christian Right’s aversion to global warming is completely baseless from every perspective and angle. No matter how one reads the bible, one will not find any passage that condemns people who believe that destroying a planet –- that in their belief structure God created — is wrong. Also, there is most definitely nowhere in the Ten Commandments a dictate that says “Thou shall not partake in conservationalism.”

Unlike evolution, it is not a threat to the archaic Evangelical interpretations of biblical doctrine to accept that global warming is a threat to humanity. It is even arguable that if you give God credit for the creation of the earth, then he would probably be pretty upset with the idea that the people for whom he created it think that they can carelessly trash his creation like college kids in a frat house.

So the question finally evolves to the point where the root understanding, the true motivation behind the debate, can be discovered.

What could possibly motivate a group whose interests have literally no stake in the Global Warming fight, to lead a crusade of repudiation against people who simply want to ensure the stability of the planet and the quality of existence for all life forms that inhabit it?

What has infuriated these oppositionists so much about what they see as the evil leftist science, that they would fail to understand the simplistic concept that even if the earth isn’t warming because of the massive amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere, it is simply inherently better not to pollute for a wide range of other reasons including water quality, air purity, minimizing the acid rain effect, and many other environmental health concepts that are, thankfully, not currently under any debate or religious assault.

To really understand the ruse that corporate America and the Republicans have once again perpetrated on those poor, unsuspecting Evangelicals, it is prudent to return to the conclusion previously drawn concerning whom actually DOES benefit from global warming being discredited as a global threat.

Manufacturing in the U.S. has been working its way towards total collapse since the 1980’s. Globalization, while an inevitability, put the United States, and its higher overall cost of doing business, at a great disadvantage to the rest of the world. The result was/is the outsourcing of supply and production due, in large part, to the lack of restrictions placed on business by foreign governments less constrained by ethical concerns.

As the U.S.’s major corporations began jockeying for their respective positions in the newly developing and evolving global economy the accounting divisions of those companies, under pressure from increasingly vocal shareholders, got through the message to the executives very clearly that to optimize profits and to compete under the increasingly cut throat global conditions, all the stops needed to be pulled out concerning cost effectiveness.

There was opportunity to be had in the Wild West style business conditions of the third world. Corporate paradises of poverty and corruption where restrictions are non existent and anything goes, places like the Jamaican Free Zones are disgusting examples of the lack of regulation on corporate practices outside of the United States.

So when Al Gore started going to college campuses and corporate conventions showing his surprisingly powerful slideshow presentation generating an oddly bipartisan appeal, and eventually worked his way to your local Cineplex, the Right heeded the call from their corporate financiers and sprung into action with a propaganda campaign aimed directly at recruiting the Christian right into the fight.

One has to have respect for Rove and company, from an evil political genius, manipulator of the population, puppet master, type perspective. They say you can only go to the well oh so many times, but time after time the Republicans have been able to pimp out their most loyal voter base — the Christian right in case you haven’t caught the subtext yet — and time after time they respond in herd like unison, regurgitating whatever bile they are spoon fed on Fox News as their personal ethos.

So the master plan to protect the right of foreign governments to entice American business by allowing them to pollute their countries was unfurled. Rove railed the troops; the troops took up the cause; and the Christian Right, looking as uneducated and unreasonable as ever, fought the “good” fight against global warming with their usual fanatical vigor.

Essentially, they fight IN DEFENSE of pollution. Number one on the casualty list – The Kyoto Treaty, which remains minus a signature by the maestro of this long, drawn out opera known as the Prostitution and Exploitation of the United States, and friend to all things oil, King George II.

It is time for those particular Americans opposing environmental action to wake up to the realities that are going on around them and to stop using the bible as an excuse for their educational deficiencies.

On the most basic level, if the concept that the anti-environmentalists are apposing is wrong literally nothing happens. If they happen to be right, the Earth will face a once preventable but at that point irreversible state of environmental, economic, and political disaster, on par – ironically enough – with revelations.

It is admirable to stand up for the principles of one’s beliefs. Although one may disagree with the Christian Right’s interpretations of Christianity it is the duty of every true American to support, unceasingly, every citizen’s right to possess those views and to freely make those interpretations as they see fit in the spectrum of their private life or their place of worship.

Whether one subscribes to the long or the short version of earth’s history it is consistently evident that, should humanity vanish, it would not be the first, nor likely the last, species to rule the planet only to be dethroned in a rather dramatic fashion.

It is time for the U.S.’s population to realize that Global Warming is not a partisan problem. Global, by definition, means everyone. It is in the interest of all those that inhabit this planet to take care of the environment, whether the reason is to prevent the warming of the earth or to solve any of the many other environmental negatives harming more micro aspects of the earth’s ecosystem.

The deficiencies by the general population concerning their understanding of the spectrum of political issues currently relevant stems greatly from their inability to comprehend the underlying factors behind a particular issue. The result is a syndrome where a good majority of the population on both sides never truly understands the opinions that they are parroting.

With global warming, as with every other issue that the government actually acknowledges, there is always one side that stands to profit from a certain outcome. When examining an issue, if one is able to determine which side stands to benefit the most from a policy decision and then compares that understanding with the propaganda being presented by each side, it is then possible to be able to achieve a more realistic understanding of the true repercussions of the issue under consideration. Only then, with all the external and internal factors taken into account, can a truly informed position be a achieved.

When the issue of Global Warming is examined through this spectrum or with this thought process applied as a template, it is obvious that literally ONLY corporate American stands to benefit from the discrediting of global warming.

The needs of corporate America are obviously intrinsic with the health of the American economy, but at what price can we sell out the planet and the future of our forthcoming generations? When does the long term economic stability of the planet out weigh the forth quarter dividends of the Big Three?

To solve what ails corporate American and the U.S. economy it is necessary for the federal government to focus on policies and solutions that relate to larger scale economic issues such as leveling the trade playing field with Asia, opening up new markets in places like Cuba and South America, renegotiating NAFTA, re-strengthening the value of the dollar in relation to the Euro and the Yen, and the greater macro economic problems that the U.S. faces and will face as the global economy develops.

Destroying the environment as a cost control method is simply another short sighted and ineffective quick fix; and an insurmountably costly one at that. Even big business – the influence behind the angry mob – needs to reconsider their position on this issue for they too are afflicted with the very American disease of chronic shortsightedness.

You might also like

A very well written unresearched article in my opinion. The question is not whether or not there is global warming, but whether human being are causing it particularly through c02 emmissions.aThis is highly debatable. In fact over 400 scientists met in New York just last week denouncing that that c02 is the cause. BBC also aired a documentary last year with numerous climatologists all saying that it was a hoax. I am not a born again christin, nor a right wing republican. I do however question Mr. Gore’s assertions, particularly when he has no problem with a 30,000 dollar electric bill that he had on his residence last year. Just a wee bit hypocritical in my humble opinion.

Not only is their considerable debate on this issue still, I find it amazing that so many of the folks that do claim that global warming is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions to say that the debate is over, it is not by a long shot.

I personally believe that most of this is being perpetrated by people that want global government, particularly by people such as Maurice Strong, I wonder if you have researched him! As he is one of the world’s leading proponent of it.

Acrapalypse Now

You know, if I had seaside property I would be worried about the environment too.

http://earthandeconomy.com Earth & Economy

It sure would be nice if we could get past the global warming debate and start to focus on the real issues at hand. I never understood what the harm is in caring for the planet and slowing down our consumption of resources. I certainly don’t want to be closed minded about having an open discussion concerning global warming. But at some point the discussion should lead to a pursuit of factual knowledge. So, what if global warming didn’t happen? Well then there is no harm. And, what if it does? Then, I think we all know the answer. I am not willing to take the risk of being wrong. Too much is at stake for future generations.

http://earthandeconomy.com/ GeoR

The Evangelical Christian right has no part in the questioning of anthropogenic global warming. The term is used in this article as a feeble attempt to denigrate the opposing view. When I came to that point in the article I stopped reading because the author had destroyed his credibility.

Irene Wagner

Sarcasm Alert: I counted 24 instances of the word “warming” in this article, and 8 instances of the word “Christian.” Anthony, will an essential part of the “final solution” be the development of an eco-friendly gas chamber?

http://www.yahoo.com HighCastle

It might have been a good article, if you hadn’t launched so many personal attacks against the Christians. People are generally not influenced by articles that attack them on a personal level.

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

The main problem with this article = putting aside all the petty technical ones – is that the author has no idea what he’s talking about. He doesn’t understand where the objections to the global warming movement come from, the basis for those objections or who the actual people objecting are. Instead of addressing the real issues he sets up the straw man of some sort of bizarro Christian anti-science conspiracy and attacks that as if it really existed, when it does not.

Real opposition to the global warming movement comes from people who are concerned about issues of national sovereignty and individual liberty and scientific empiricism. For most the problem is not with global warming as science, it’s with the politicization of the issue, where it is being used as a power grab by internationalist interests and where it has become an absolutist religion where no dissent or even scientific inquiry into the issue will be tolerated.

Dave

Irene Wagner

I’m guessing there are atheists, Christians (I personally know whose company is trying to get funding for wind-generated turbines he helped develop), Jews and Buddhists who have good ideas that would wean the US from its dependence on oil. This is a goal that would be good for the US from a foreign policy (and because the US is an empire, global) standpoint, and arguably good for the world ecologically.

Unified efforts require unity.

Tony

I’m glad I generated the discussion with this piece. The point was to get past the science debate where we examined very small factors and argue over 1/10 of a degrees. I wanted to examine the idea that it seems ridiculous to argue against conservation and that is it corporate America, using the Christian right as their prosititues per usual, leading the march against it and I’m not finding anyone really repudiating that.

Like it or not the Christian Right is tied in with this argument. Their anti-stem cell, anti-global warming, anti-science stances have been ruining this planet ever since Gallello. If you don’t believe me google the environmental policy of the Bush Administration, also known as “The Dominion Theory.”

The interesting thing in these comments that I did not see was a counterpoint. The writer is insulted, the article called inflammatory, but this is where the substance stops.

National soverignty? individual liberty — to what? pollute? Scientific emperiricism? Well, I guess I go back to our old friend Gallello. The world is flat! The world is flat!

On one final not, Christian right, i’m sorry. I’m sorry ever Republican pimps you out every four to eight years. I’m sorry you ignorantly come out and vote time and time again and get nothing in return. I know you had high hopes for G.W.; he seemed like one of your guys. And then all of a sudden no gay marriage ammendment, no overturning Rowe v Wade; what happened?

Good job guys, good debate.

Tony

*note, *every

Still getting use to this online posting stuff. Really appreciate the comments again guys. Thanks for reading.

Maurice

Anthony,

the church of Global Warming is no different than any other faith based control mechanism. Its goal is to centralize as much power as possible. The tenets of the ‘faith’ are unimportant. It could be global cooling as was proselytized in the early 70’s. Or it could be CFC’s which is an older theory not thrown out there so much these days. The actual beliefs are unimportant as long as they cause fear and action.

Here is an overly optimistic quote concerning the Skeptics Conference:

“This is their chance to speak out,” said Bast. “If 400 or 500 ‘skeptics’ from around the world assemble in New York City, it will be difficult for policymakers and journalists to ignore us.”

I think the media was able to ignore them just fine.

Tony

Irene,

I missed your comment and wanted to address it. On the unity aspect you are absolutely correct. Only when we get everyone on board will we truely work towards making the planet healthy.

I am actually a Christian, believe it or not, and I know there are many Christians doing phenominal things to help the environment and people. The “Christan Right” and the “Evangelicals” are referenced — in this piece — as they are in the current political climate; as the fantatical group led by Fallwell and all his kooks, screaming from the pulpit and Bob Jones “University.”

Again, while it is true that all need to be involved in the battle to save the earth, when a group regularly preaches that science is constantly wrong and uses terms likes scientific empiricism (why can’t a process like evolution be so complicated and powerful that God created it?), they are harming the rest of the population by holding back advancement.

Jim Andrew

This article is a crock. The AGW proponents have based their claim on four points.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Since 1880 CO2 has been going up and so has the temperature.
3. Ice Core studies have shown that CO2 and temperature go in lock step for the past 400,000 years or so.
4. There are no other possible reasons for the warming.

Although the first point is true, the other ones have been shown to be false.

2. From 1940 to 1975 even though CO2 was increasing, the was a global cooling.
3. Better Ice Core studies have shown that temperature goes up first and then 2-8 hundred years later, CO2 goes up (ocean heat up and give off CO2). Cause cannot follow effect, it must preceed it.
4. Sunspot activity impedes cosmic rays from reaching earth. Cosmic rays have been shown to cause cloud formation. Therefore when there is a lot of sunspot, there will be fewer clouds and higher temperatures.

I have never hear any evangelicals talk about these things. This is just a left wing strawman attack. CO2 is not pollution, but a trace gas absolutely essential for life. In fact as science looks for possible life on other planets they look for the presence of CO2.

Doug Hunter

It’s a complete waste of time to formulate a logical rebuttal to rantings of a true believer, but we’re all still here I suppose. Naivety and ignorance abound throughout the article but let me just touch on a couple of points.

“And if this threat is scare propaganda, what exactly is the endgame for the left?”

Are you f-ing blind? What IS the sole goal and the very definition of the left?…. Getting government in control of the individual and industry. Does the ‘answer’ to global warming achieve those goals? Put your two brain cells together and even you can figure it out.

“when you ask a global warming non-believer this general line of questioning they will most likely launch into some ‘pseudo-scientific’ diatribe about warming cycles and how the earth has always been heated in small increments, ect. ”

Translation: Opponents to catastrophic warming want to discuss scientific facts and I being the high priest of the religion of the environment will hear nothing of this heresy. There’s nothing ‘psuedo-scientific’ about the 400ft rise in sea lvl since the last ice age (only 18K years ago), the 15 degree warming over northern Europe in 50 years when coming out of the Younger-Dryas, or any of the other comparisons one can make to put this 1 degree in 150 years and 5 inches of sea level rise in perspective. Those are scientific facts.

Then there’s calling CO2 a pollutant (in which case the word pollutant is meaningless because it includes literally everything), gratitous personal attacks against christians, and the world’s biggest strawman (congrats). Unfortunately, I’ll leave the rebuttal to those with more time and patience for this nonsense.

Tony

Ok so environmentalists that are trying to get the world to adhere to emissions stardards are really just trying to create conditions where its possible for the government take over big business? Yeah…its funny you should mention the rantings of a “true believer.”

Here’s an idea: We could Bush’s disgusting war and use the multiple trillions saved to give corporations massive tax cuts. I bet that would stimulate the economy and help save the environment.

It’s about a frame of mind that is destructive.

Maurice

Tony -> …trillions saved to give corporations massive tax cuts.

At least you agree corporations are paying massive taxes.

MikeU

Please get this right: CO2 is an essential trace gas, not “pollution”. It makes up nearly 4 tenths of 1 tenth of 1% of our atmosphere by volume, and 95-97% of that small amount is due to the natural carbon cycle on our planet — the one that feeds us. CO2 doesn’t become uncomfortable for human beings until it’s about 5X its present concentration, and doesn’t become toxic until it’s about 12X its current concentration.

This is also not some sort of battle between evangelical Christians and Science: it’s a battle of political scare-mongering vs reasoned debate. The science is far from “settled”, and depends largely on the climate models we have — which we *know* have serious flaws. Even some of the underlying math for those models may be fatally flawed: the original solution of the differential equations for a semi-transparent atmosphere assumed an infinite thickness for the atmosphere (because that made the equations manageable). Recent efforts to rework those equations with the proper boundary conditions have turned up some very interesting results – they get rid of the discontinuity at the ground that the current equations have, and provide a much better match to the observed data, both for our own atmosphere, and even for Mars’ atmosphere. The problem with them? They also show that CO2-driven warming rolls off much faster than current models predict. If accepted, that would probably result in billions of $$ less funding for climate research…

Tony

At least? I am supply sider when it comes to my economic beliefs and your assumption that I am some leftest radicale goes to the heart of the problem with the perverted form of conservatism that is the norm today.

Emission standards are vital as we expand into a global economy but these standards MUST NOT be only for the United States. This is a global issue and the playing field must be level.

Now what has George Bush done to level the playing field for American Corporations in the global economy? He outsources defense contracts! He does the hulla dance with the shieks begging for oil!

Barry Goldwater would spit in George Bush’s face. Conservatism is about small government that stays out of the way of the capitalism economy, and allows the corporations to generate the stimuli that moves the American Economy.

George Bush just spends spends spends and hides behind the guise of some minimal tax cuts or some garbage rebate. Ron Paul is a true Republican and yet he got pushed to the side as some loon while Romney and McCain claimed to be part of the “Regean Revolution.” Ronald Regean wielded American economic power like a battle ax; he didn’t have to invaded countries and occupy regions to prove American machismo.

Back on topic, there is so reason we can’t maximize capitalism and environmentalism. Think about the money and the industry possible with green energy sources. Money generated in America that stays in America.

Everyone equated enivornmentalism to more government agencies when in reality all that’s necessary is to give tax breaks and other benefits to corporations meeting various green requirements. It is also vital to acknowledge the problem so we can focus on research to make those green technologies cheaper to the general business consumer corporations.

Maurice

Tony,

your fevered comments come across as one who has truly accepted the church of Global Warming. So yes I will be suprised by any rational statements you make.

You need to realize there are plenty of Skeptics that are rational. Perhaps you should consider some of the comments before dismissing them out of hand.

Just because I don’t go to your church (of Global Warming) doesn’t mean I’m going to hell.

Doug Hunter

“Ok so environmentalists that are trying to get the world to adhere to emissions stardards are really just trying to create conditions where its possible for the government take over big business? ”

No, read what I said. I was referencing what the left had to gain, not environmentalists. They are not one and the same although environmental controls = government controls so they often work together.

Lee Richards

Re #16:
“At least you agree corporations are paying massive taxes.”

Corporations pay zero taxes;their customers pay their taxes for them.

***

This debate will be over soon. With oil heading toward $150-$200 a barrel–and running out anyway–the next argument will be about perspiration pollution and personal warming as we walk and bike everywhere we go, and farm our lawns.

Tony

Ok, lets say you are all right and global warming is a huge, fake, leftist conspiracy to turn us all into socialists. Where does that leave us? Should we just let companies pollute at will? If global warming is fake then it really shouldn’t matter so I guess let’s just let it ride.

I feel I did my argument an injustice by coming across as imflamitory as I did. It obviously deflected from my main point as none of my detractors have addressed it.

Once again, I stated that ok, maybe global warming isn’t happening, but polluting the air still causes so many adverse effects to the environment that the conservation and emissions regulation movements should be supported, even if you’re not doing it to specifically stop global warming.

By arguing against the policies that global warming activists are touting you are hurting the earth in some environmental way, even if the wound is not specifically caused by warming.

Jason

Agreed that pollution is a bad thing and should be controlled. The problem is, should CO2 really be defined as pollution? If global warming is not occurring, CO2 is NOT pollution, and trying to control it wastes much money that could otherwise be put in to controlling real pollutants.

And there is as much money in controlling CO2 as there is in not controlling CO2, the only question is, who gets it? Somebody is getting paid to create CO2 scrubbers, and ethanol cars (and ethanol, there’s a fiasco…), and ‘carbon credits,’ not to mention the fund raising that is possible with such a scary issue. Both sides stand to gain financially if the global warming argument goes their way, so please don’t put the greed just on one side of the equation.

Clavos

Tony,

Very few (if any) skeptics deny that the earth is in fact in a warming cycle.

What we question is the degree to which human activity contributes to that warming. We also question many of the predictions for the near and intermediate future as to what deleterious effects (if any) warming will have.

Too much of the “science” associated with the issue is “junk” science, and unfortunately gets a lot of exposure in the media, leading to stronger conviction on the part of those of us already questioning.

When Al Gore predicted enormous increases in sea levels in a few years, he was refuted even by the scientists who most ardently support the concept of anthropogenic GW.

I am all in favor of a major effort (along the lines of the man to the moon project) to develop alternative fuels, for example. Development of non-carbon based fuels WILL reduce the pollution we DO have, but more importantly, it will release us from our bondage to the Arabs and the likes of Hugo Chavez.

Our dependence on foreign oil is hazardous not only to the atmospheric health, but to our economic health as well.

http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

The GW-skeptics on here accuse the GW-believers of being dogmatic and inflexible. Yet I do not detect much flexibility in the skeptics’ comments, either.

Clavos and Maurice are not very open to the possibility that they might be mistaken, even though their whole argument is that there is no proof of human-caused warming – not that there is definitive counter-evidence.

Possibly both sides should be open to some sort of “truth” that resides between the two extremes.

Clavos

“Clavos and Maurice are not very open to the possibility that they might be mistaken, even though their whole argument is that there is no proof of human-caused warming – not that there is definitive counter-evidence.”

I never touched on the issue of definitive counter evidence.

There is ample evidence to support the cyclicality of GW, including ice cores, historical data showing much warmer temperatures at latitudes far above present day areas, sunspot activity, etc.

I’m sure Maurice has plenty of evidence to which to point, as well.

http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

Our effect on the environment is far from benign. Many of the practices that fall under the heading of “going green” will benefit the planet whether or not GW itself turns out to be an exaggerated threat.

The fact that this issue divides along political, rather than scientific, lines makes me somewhat skeptical of both sides.

I do think, however, that the believers have basically already won the argument, in terms of ongoing and future public policy. So you can keep yelling. But even conservatives, led by John McCain and former Democrat Joe Lieberman, are starting to turn up in the believer camp.

Michael S

To summarize and put things in basic terms, CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for upwards of a hundred years. Each successive year of continually increasing amounts of emissions builds on the hundred previous. If emissions aren’t counterbalanced by sinks, the system is thrown out of equilibrium, resulting in changes to temperature, humidity, ocean alkalinity, and so on. Water vapor on the other hand, while being a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, is cycled through the atmosphere in a period of days.

As human emissions of CO2 have risen and continue to rise, the climate system is responding. The oceans, having not reached a saturation point, actually absorb about 50% of all human CO2 emissions. If this were not the case, the rise in atmospheric CO2 would be markedly greater than what has been observed to date. However, the continued rise of atmospheric levels of CO2 illustrates that the natural sinks can’t keep up with global emissions. Rising temperatures illustrate that the negative feedbacks can’t either.

The scary part being that at least two studies in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals (Science and the Journal of Geophysical Research) have found that the ocean’s ability to absorb additional amounts of CO2 is slowing.

It’s never been about the consensus but about the underlying scientific data that supports it. The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation. At least they’ve given up the ghost of attempts to say there is no warming at all. However, criticisms abound with generic references to natural cycles with no specifics. If current warming trends cannot be attributed to manmade global emissions (the elephant in the room), to what can they be attributed? It’s not solar cycles or galactic cosmic rays or orbital obliquities and eccentricities or tectonic plate shifts or volcanic activity or 1,500 year cycles (that are about 600 years off schedule) or ocean currents or dust storms, so what is the culprit? Still waiting for the skeptic crowd to provide a cogent and supportable argument that withstands scientific scrutiny over any reasonable period of time. None has been forthcoming.

http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

I wish this discussion hadn’t gotten sidetracked into arguing the merits or questions about global warming. That’s not what the article is about, and at this point I think it’s largely a distraction.

People are so fanatical about the issue on both sides that no progress is likely to be made arguing over the scientific issues themselves. We’re way past that point.

What seems relevant to me is the discussion of how to deal with global warming if it is the threat some believe it to be, and how to address those people who want to use it as a political issue to advance an agenda which may be more harmful than global warming itself.

Dave

Cannonshop

Climate Change, Dave, is a fact of life on Earth. That is, the climate is GONNA change, sometimes it will trend warmer, and others colder. The core of the REAL debate is whether human beings can have a deliberate, as opposed to accidental, impact, and whether the accidental impact carries influence greater than the margin of variable change in nature.

Only an incredible optimist can assume that, if you do JUST THE RIGHT THING, the climate will remain static. It’s a bit like assuming that if you pray the right way, and hard enough, the Black Death will miss your village in the thirteenth century, or that assumption that burning the heretics will cause god to have pity on your nation and withold the earthquakes.

The climate IS changing, it has always BEEN changing, it will right up to the end of the planet.

What does the Left gain from it? How about what the Soviet Union failed to achieve in seventy years of supporting “Progressive Elements” world-wide? To enforce a Global Climate control, you must have Global Government, and to do so efficiently requires a Global Government that can ignore such minor inconveniences as personal liberty and personal property for a GLOBAL collective “good” enforced by a recognized “Elite” in the manner of Plato’s Priest-Kings with what devolves to a form of absolute power-the power to determine the distribution of wealth, the power to assign work or consign workers to the bin, the ability to decide who eats, who starves, and who lives where.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

What seems relevant to me is the discussion of how to deal with global warming if it is the threat some believe it to be, and how to address those people who want to use it as a political issue to advance an agenda which may be more harmful than global warming itself.

I wish this discussion hadn’t gotten sidetracked into arguing the merits or questions about global warming. That’s not what the article is about, and at this point I think it’s largely a distraction.

That’s true on at least one side of the equation.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the skeptical crowd always resorts to discussions about politics, religion, conspiracies, and the like, because they can’t sustain a viable argument within the scientific arena. This is why the primary voices of skepticism originate from “think tanks” and other political and economic minded organizations. (Did you see the list of sponsors of the “climate change conference” in New York??)

Substantial discussions of reactions and resolutions can only bear worthwhile fruit based on a concurrence that there is a valid problem with which to deal. The skeptic crowd pretending it doesn’t exist by screaming as loud as possible to any media outlet that will hear them while being unable to establish a solid argument within the scientific arena is counterproductive.

But, then again, their interest has never been in actually solving the problem at all.

Dan Miller

Dave Nalle, with whom I tend to agree more than to disagree, says:

“I wish this discussion hadn’t gotten sidetracked into arguing the merits or questions about global warming. That’s not what the article is about, and at this point I think it’s largely a distraction.”

To me, that is a problem. The merits should not be considered a distraction. Whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions and other human activities cause global warming and, if so, what can realistically be done about it, should be the central focus. The religious fervor with which advocates on all sides advance answers to these questions and pose solutions does not further the debate. Nor does the rather generous use of adjectives in the principal article advance the discussion. Both are distractions, and harmful ones.

Of course people generate lots of carbon dioxide which, allegedly, causes global warming. We, like all mammals, exhale more carbon dioxide than we inhale. There are lots of us, and mass genocide would be one answer; a very bad answer, obviously. Many of us eat meat, which has to be produced and the production of which causes substantial methane emissions. So, let’s all stop eating meat? Unfortunately, there are environmental problems with vegetable production as well, and lots of resources previously devoted to the production of vegetables for eating (e.g, corn) are now devoted to growing vegetables for ethanol production as a substitute for gasoline. Apparently, ethanol is not all that environmentally friendly and the price of corn has gone way up — not a good thing for folks for whom corn is a major part of their diet.

There are lots of easy answers. Turn down the heat and wear sweaters? Turn down the air conditioning and dress more appropriately for warm weather? (Where does that hot air exhausted by an air conditioning system go, anyway?) Drive a smaller car and take public transportation when possible? Walk? Ride a bicycle? Easy answers, but not what most of us are likely to do.

There are also lots of feel good answers. Go to a global warming concert, buy carbon credits, etc. Please be generous when the hat is passed. Right.

Unless and until the fanatics and religious zealots on both sides of the isle calm down, put aside ideology (and theology), and dispassionately reflect on the elementary principles of cause and effect, whatever problem there may be with “man made global warming” will not be ameliorated.

Dan Miller

Tony

I’d love to know where all you people who think global warming is fake got your PHD’s from. It’s pretty amazing that you think you know enough about the science to debate even NASA.

I guess I focused on the greater scope of this debate, rather then the nuts and bolts, because I lump the people who argue against global warming in the same boat as those who argue against evolution. It’s kind of like trying to argue with people who insisted the world was flat. I’m sure they, at the time, had some real “scientific” evidence to back that up also.

I yearn for the days when the Republican party focused on the Goldwater ideals of small government and lower taxes rather then trying to play scientist.

People complain because this has turned into a partisan debate. Well it only turned into that because the Republicans are the only ones currently causing these problems. While the left is annoying about many an issue, at least most of those issues are rooted in things like civil liberties and the like.

The republicans are the ones taking ridiculous stances so they can pander to their Christian Right voting base, so they are the ones who deserve the heat.

Remember the days when we elected Republicans to end wars (Korea and Vietnam) and to cut government spending? Remember when those were the issues they fought for? Well that was before they realize how easily manipulated the Christian right was and sold their souls for votes.

Its frighting how anti-science this country has become. And we wonder why our economy is crumbling, the euro and yen are destroying us, and we’re losing our status as a world economic power. I guess thats what we get for electing a President who proudly admits he doesn’t read books or newspapers.

This country will only be saved when we can find a person who combines the democratic social consciousness with the republican economic sense. Instead the democrates are atrocious economically and the republicans are trying to turn us into a theocracy. And the whole time both parties manipulate the people so much that they actually believe they know something about science when they are regergitating someone else’s findings. Amazing.

Marcia L. Neil

There’s another, “underground” perspective about global warming, that involves mental telepathy and a mental set of ‘special’ historical palm trees. The mental set shows the trees when they were baby trees. Each tree in the set is located in a specific region of the earth, and there has been a sort of stampede into those sub-tropical regions causing catastrophes and wars — the trees are located in areas considered to be topo-graphically hazardous yet have a mild climate.

Stormy

I think the title of this article is very telling, “Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?” Perhaps it should be entitled, “Global Warming: Has the Debate ever Occurred.” The answer is a simple, emphatic, “no”, despite the fact that Gore and company have claimed “the debate is over” for 15 years or more.

The article itself was completely off the mark as it set the stage as “science” against the “fringe right/evangelicals.” Did I miss something? I thought, Richard Lindzen of MIT, the premiere Climate Scientist of our time (and dozens and dozens of other climate scientists) were actually scientists, not members of the Evangelical clergy. If any side of this issue acts with blind faith and religious fervor, it’s clearly those pushing the warming agenda on extremely weak science and even weaker climate models. What is also very telling in a number of posts is the confusion over “pollution” and “global warming”, two mutually exclusive phenomena. Clearly the result of greenwashing and posturing by extremists, who have done everything possible to create new jargon, such as the phrase “Global Warming pollution” and “CO2 pollution.” Basically, that’s an oxymoron, but it has become accepted vernacular these days. A lie repeated often enough becomes accepted as the truth, and clearly, that’s an excellent example of the practice. You now have people confusing real enviro issues (clean air and clean water with global warming). Truly astounding.

The real problem here is attacking a fictitious threat (man-induced global warming) and spending trillions to fix this non-existent threat. That said, where you will find common ground on both sides is the pursuit of alternative energy sources, which will move us towards energy independence. Clearly, both sides of the issue would be happy with that outcome if we could wean ourselves from the petroleum addiction. However, that’s where the commonality ends. One side is hell bent on spending ridiculous sums on carbon sequestration, carbon trading schemes, etc., all of which have no tangible benefits other than making people “feel good” fighting a phantom boogie man. You might as well flush the money down the toilet. Personally, I’d rather take those dollars and point them towards clean air and water if you want to make a difference in enviro quality. For the record, my background is not climate science, although I’ve studied it as a hobby since the early 1990’s – I’m a Mechanical Engineer, which requires an understanding of the physical sciences and an application of real science in real life – not speculation about pseudo science in a netherworld.

Tony

So, again I ask the question. If global warming is not real that we can just pump whatever we want into our atmosphere and nothing will happen? I mean you really, seriously believe that?

In that case why don’t we just revert back to the industrial revolution and burn black coal in our plants?

Clavos

“So, again I ask the question. If global warming is not real that we can just pump whatever we want into our atmosphere and nothing will happen? I mean you really, seriously believe that?”

Tony, you’re not paying attention.

Not one of the skeptics who have posted on this thread has said anything remotely like what you say here.

Not one.

http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

Tony, reread Stormy’s comment. It’s the most cogent thing on here, including your original article.

The question is not and has never been whether global warming is real. The question is how best to keep the air, land and water clean, provide for public safety and expand energy independence.

The problem is that the global warming promoters have chosen to use this issue as a lever to pursue an agenda which is about political power and social engineering rather than addressing our real environmental and energy issues.

Dave

Chris

It’s interesting to note the comment policy here forbids personal attacks, including attacks against groups. I guess if you’re a Christian that doesn’t apply.

This commentary is so misinformed on so many levels I could almost write a book to fully document all that is wrong with it. First and foremost, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is an atmospheric trace gas essential for plant life. Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. Third, there is overwhelming evidence that there is no global warming at all.

I will have to assume that the author is completely oblivious to the large cooling that has happened over the past year, along with the fact that the snow and ice pack over North America and the Arctic is at its highest level in over 40 years. It’s also safe to assume he is unaware of all the other evidence against man made global warming, including the ice core data that shows CO2 concentration is a function of temperature and not the other way around. In other words, temperature in the long term record has gone up hundreds of years before CO2 did, and temperature subsequently fell hundreds of years before CO2 concentrations did.

As for motive on the part of global warmers, how about research dollars, new job opportunities in the bogus field of man made climate change, and the Nobel prize, no less. More importantly, the globalization/nanny state/socialist movement others have mentioned. What better way to gain power than to scaring people into buying in to global warming so they will agree to numerous new rules and restrictions, with the US and it’s citizens at the whim of other countries? By the way, ask the developing countries how they feel about getting saddled with treaties like Kyoto.

Finally, the cost of believing in the global warming religion is not zero. Given there were so many absurd ideas put forth in the commentary it’s hard to pick a winner, but the zero cost assertion may be it. The estimated cost of Kyoto alone is in the trillions.

Do some research next time before you just decide to spout more insults at a particular group.

Actually, Chris, the comment policy only prohibits attacks against other posters on this site.

It does not forbid attacks on groups, politicians, movie stars, pundits, etc.

Tony

I’d also like to note, Chris, that this was not an attack on Christians. It’s an attack on a group that thinks they have a monopoly on Christianity and is determined to enforce their personal views on everyone else by way of polluting the Constitution with their theology.

Not that it should have any bearing but I am actually a Catholic (who many on Christian right have stated publically they feel are not Christians, but thats a debate for a different day).

Tony

Really I dont even like the terminology of attack. My effort here was to show that the Christian right is constantly used by the right wing for that party’s own political purposes when in many cases they have no real interest in the issue.

In my opinion these people are the furthest thing from actual Christians. They hate everyone who is not like them (gays, people of any other religion ect) and attack all that does not fit into their personal ideology. Sounds a long way from the core teachings of love that are supposed to be the base of christianity.

http://www.intersportswire.com alessandro

I present you two tiny but powerful Italian words:

Cui bono?

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

#35: I think ‘Marcia L. Neil’ must be an AI bot. Everything she/it writes is perfectly correct in terms of grammar and syntax, but makes absolutely no logical sense.

Irene Wagner

Tony — I was a real Christian when *hangs head in shame* I voted for Bush in 2000. Jesus said, “I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” We’re all works in progress, you know? I had, and still have, a long way to go in the shrewdness department.

Here’s what I know for sure: “…the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” You might be mad as hell at “single issue” Christian voters who are used by politicians who make promises they have no intention of keeping, but no amount of ranting is going to change the minds of manipulative and conniving politicians. You have to change the minds of the people–some of them truly good people who think they’re doing the right thing–who are voting IN these pond scum specimens. Ranting and making yourself sound like a dang New Atheist is going to make Christians dig their heels in further.

To convince someone you’ve got a way of thinking that will serve them better, you’ve got to find common ground. Stick to one issue at a time (golly, he says he wants to school me about global warming, now he’s going on about evolution and…and gays…) There’s so MUCH that has you angry at the Religious Right voting bloc (by the way, that includes pro-life Catholics) that you haven’t had time to narrow down your focus and do proper research on any single issue. This is evidenced by the fact that most of the criticism you’ve been getting about your views on global warming is from people who don’t even identify themselves as being Christians.

I understand what you’re trying to do–it’s just that you’re going about it in the wrong spirit, and on the wrong issue.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Irene… you did WHAT in 2000??!??

God said to look for him in the burning bush, not the son of Bush!

😉

Clavos

“I think ‘Marcia L. Neil’ must be an AI bot. Everything she/it writes is perfectly correct in terms of grammar and syntax…”

Not quite.

Topographically is not hyphenated.

Baronius

“So the question finally evolves to the point where the root understanding, the true motivation behind the debate, can be discovered.”

Tony asked that question about his opponents. It’s always easy to question your opponents’ motivations. He doesn’t think of asking it about his own side. Doug answered it dead-on: it’s about control. That’s why environmentalists are called “watermelons”: they’re green on the outside, red on the inside.

State-centered economies don’t work. The Soviet communist experiment failed; so did European socialism. Market economics took center stage for about ten years, then global warming came along. Tony, surely you’ve noticed that all the same groups who supported industrial policy in the name of economic growth now support it for green causes?

I can’t help noticing that the anti-GW comments on this thread are far better argued than the original article. Also, the only person who seems to be conflating religion and climate change is Tony.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Not quite.

Topographically is not hyphenated.

Unless the bot had reached the end of the line and discovered that ‘topographically’ was too long to fit.

I’ll try copying and pasting ‘Marcia’ into the comments box and get back to you…

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Nope. ‘Topographically’ fits comfortably. Go figure.

Clavos

My experience with the comments box is that it moves the entire word to the next line, rather than splitting and hyphenating.

Gee, this must be the millionth time some self-nominated faux intellectual has tried to paint evangelicals as typical right wingers (therefore anyone to the right of say Stalin must be a flat earther) in a Herculean strawman effort. The scrotal torsion alone from this kind of spin could sterilise an elephant.

B.O.R.I.N.G.

Can you think up anything original? Could it possibly be THAT hard?

Besides, you forgot to include references to NASCAR, fried chicken, trailer homes, and a handful of other redneck attributes that are usually standard for this genre. I’m docking points.

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

Crapping on Jesus and his adherents isn’t going to make the CO2 go away, that’s for sure. There are two scientific issues involved with global warming.

One is the proliferation of greenhouse gases that have changed the atmosphere in such a way as to increase the earth’s temperature. The second is “global dimming” caused by particulate pollution of the air. The net effect so fare of the global dimming has been to prevent the rise in temperatures that the greenhouse gases would cause.

The bottom line here is that the bio-sphere is much more sensitive to tampering than we have realized hitherto, and that a lot of real changes will be needed to prevent a searing of our lives in the oven of our own pollution.

One can argue that believing in a messianic redemption makes one not care about the environment. The argument here would be “Jesus is gonna’ clean it all up anyway – why should we bother?”

This is a nice Christian argument, fit for those who cannot see that man is a partner to Creation, and all the areas where G-d allowed slack in that Creation, where bad things and mistakes can happen, and where the Evil Inclination can rule (like the inside of just about every bank on the planet), are there for us to attempt to correct.

To put it differently, this is the reason to attempt to correct the problems in the environment, as G-d’s partners in Creation, and not to regard it all as G-d’s problem. A good steward does not think that way. A Jewish approach to all this is tikkún ‘olám repair of the world. This is the approach you have just read in this comment.

But there are others who need to be blamed in the issues of pollution, both gaseous and particulate. There are the corporations, for whom it does pays not to give a damn, and most important, there are ourselves. When we pour paint into the drain, or use chemicals to attack weeds and insects, we ourselves pollute G-d’s green earth that is supposed to provide us with life. When we drive from one shopping mall parking lot to another, we do the same thing, polluting the air with gasoline, lead, etc.

So, looking in the mirror would be a better solution than crapping on Christians….

Michael S

The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation. At least they’ve given up the ghost of attempts to say there is no warming at all. However, criticisms abound with generic references to natural cycles with no specifics. If current warming trends cannot be attributed to manmade global emissions (the elephant in the room), to what can they be attributed? It’s not solar cycles or galactic cosmic rays or orbital obliquities and eccentricities or tectonic plate shifts or volcanic activity or 1,500 year cycles (that are about 600 years off schedule) or ocean currents or dust storms, so what is the culprit? Still waiting for the skeptic crowd to provide a cogent and supportable argument that withstands scientific scrutiny over any reasonable period of time. None has been forthcoming.

Tony, Stormy, Well?

Maurice

Dave #29 – Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? The title of this article is an effort to stir up an argument of the merits or questions about global warming. It is nothing to do with how to deal with global warming if it is the threat some believe it to be…. It is an in your face; of course its true; now what are you going to do about it kind of article.

I just have to point out some of the errors helpful environmentalists have made in the past:

DDT – turns out it is the best solution for preventing malaria. Thousands died because of its ban. Now being used again.

Asbestos – reviled by some but recognized as the best fire retardant and absolutely safe when used properly.

Super Fires – last season we experienced forest fires that man caused by not allowing controlled burns. These files were so immense they could be seen from outer space.

CFCs – This is the fairy story that first caused me to look at GW fanatics as memebers of the Church of Global Warming. Once again we lose the use of a valuable product.

We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. H. L. Mencken

Tony

Michael S,

I wrote the piece; I’m not one of the skeptical crowd.

G Alston

“The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation.”

Indeed. Let’s use your logic — Phil sees tracks in his yard. His claim is that these are from aliens. Bob sees the tracks. It’s up to Bob to prove to Phil that his hypothesis is incorrect by offering an alternative. Given that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, it’s up to Phil to prove he’s right.

Skeptics don’t have to submit a #$#% thing. It’s not up to skeptics to prove you wrong. It’s up to you to prove yourself correct. Everyone in the USA is affected by the law, which is premised on reasonable doubt. It’s a foundation of our existence. Except of course, subjects you care about? Invariably, failing the proof test, the typical alarmist argument then shifts to the precautionary principle, which is a half-witted, muddled up corruption of Pascal’s Wager foisted upon the rest of us by those who simply can’t understand that it’s not the same thing (in Pascal’s Wager there is no downside.)

***

Tony — as noted in #54, what passes for logic and thought in your reality? Do you really think that all you have to do is make accusations and silly claims and the rest of us are to do your homework for you and prove things to you? Are you really this lazy?

Rep. Bruce Vento, a popular high school science and social studies teacher who went on to serve the people of St. Paul, Minnesota for three decades as a State Representative and Congressman, died on Tuesday, October 10, 2000 from what the press widely reported as “lung cancer.”

On October 13, 2000, the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (MARF) issued a statement clarifying that the cancer which took Vento’s life was not lung cancer, but malignant mesothelioma.

While lung cancer is usually associated with smoking, mesothelioma is caused by asbestos exposure. The tumor aggressively invades the lining surrounding the lungs, heart or abdomen.

Vento did not smoke but was exposed to asbestos from his work as a laborer in his youth. Weeks before his death, he filed a lawsuit against 11 companies that allegedly supplied or installed asbestos products at job sites where he had worked as a state-paid laborer as a youth.

According to press reports that I heard on MPR and elsewhere, he had worked only one summer exposed to asbestos. It was enough to kill the man.

You have enough sites cited above that you can see just how dangerous the stuff is for yourself.

Have fun!

After you’ve had a good think about which is worse – death in a fire or death from asbestosis or its related diseases – think carefully about all those other substances you complain have been removed from the market by “helpful environmentalists” in the past “by error”.

Maurice

Ruvy,

fire is dangerous. Used properly it is not.

Asbestos is dangerous. Used properly it is not.

Eating pork is dangerous. Prepared properly it is not.

The point of my post #57 is the correlation between religious superstition and the Church of Global Warming.

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

The point of my post #57 is the correlation between religious superstition and the Church of Global Warming.

Maurice,

Go to the link in my comment #55. Read the transcript and pay close attention. There is no “church of global warming”. There is a reason that global warming does not appear to have an effect, and it is discussed carefully in the link on “global dimming”.

Then, when you are done, go to the links I gave you in comment #60. I’ve done plenty of work in the past concerning asbestos and its dangers – enough to know that it is a substance that kills.

Irene Wagner

#47 Dr.Dreadful, you son of a pun! Cents of Twain from a Christian: If we protected the natural world long enough to examine its bounty, we’d probably find what we needed to cure most (many? all?) diseases and feed the world without disrupting ecological balance. It’s possible the world really is a gift from a benevolent Creator, who for some reason allows Evil to exist. He’s designed elements in nature to counter the corrupting influences on creation, and given us the intelligence to find them. George Washington Carver, a biologist who considered the needs of people AND the land when he developed hundreds of agricultural alternatives to the soil-depleting cultivation of King Cotton, was a modern-day pioneer in this kind of work. (A Christian, he was a vocal critic of the theory of evolution, by the way. Whether you agree with him on this point or not, his views on origins certainly were not an impediment to his biological research.)

Integrated Pest Management develops agricultural applications of the remarkable interplay between plants and “pests.” Western Medicine (which, give it its due, has kept a lot of people alive with synthetic cures) is finally recognizing the validity of some Alternative Medicine, wisdom gleaned from nature by “primitive” cultures. We’ve just begun exploration of solar-, wind-and water-power for modern energy needs.

Not every technological advance has been harmful, at least in the short-term; however, those who take the long view are looking to nature for ways to address energy, health, and food needs. Global Warming is a small and, YES, debatable subset of a host of other ecological and sustainability issues that are harder to ignore. This sturdy old world (it’s at LEAST several thousand years old, after all!) will probably take a little more abuse while we work–in a hurry and TOGETHER–to find and develop sustainable and natural alternatives to short-term solutions. Those who have other priorities will come around if there are cheaper natural alternatives ready to use.

Yeah, there are those who, protecting their mammoth industrial rice bowls, THWART this research. I don’t imagine most of them care about anyone, including God, except themselves. Let’s sic the Atheists (some of whom respect Evolution’s Nature as a god-replacement) on THEM.

heather

I think you are wright irene about global warming

from

heather

Clavos

Aaah, Irene,

I’m rapidly becoming a fan of yours, yet I often disagree with your ideas; what a quandary!

Nonetheless, you write eloquently and with good humor, (#63 is a prime example), so I read every word.

And, this time, I find little with which to disagree, therefore will not even mention my quibbles; which you can probably surmise anyway.

Like Maurice, I have differences with congregants of the Church of GW, and like you, I agree we should stop abusing and especially, should seek alternative means of powering our industry and our selves ASAP.

Among those currently investigating and experimenting on a large scale are the holders of the most “mammoth industrial rice bowls,” the energy companies.

Given that they naturally have the greatest expertise in that science, I think this is good, and should be supported, whether with grants or, preferably, with tax breaks for directed R&D focused on alternative renewable fuels; especially hydrogen, which I think shows the greatest long term promise.

Irene Wagner

Ruvy in Jerusalem, Jews as well as Christians need to remember Messiah might not get back for a thousand years or more. Maybe even the resettling of Israel will have to be put on hold while Jewish brainpower is fully exploited to address Global Warming/Dimming. Maybe what happened in 1947 started the first of what will be many modern (perhaps peaceful?) advances of the Jews toward their Zion. Moses and the Jews spent years wandering in the desert around Mount Sinai before they were allowed to settle the Promised Land.

If global warming will damage England as much as the Global Dimming link claims it will, imagine what it will do to The Rose Blossoming in the Desert.

Heather, thanks, but I was actaully wishy-washy on global warming. I said that though it is debatable, we need to move full-speed ahead on energy alternatives anyway. If the conclusions drawn in the study on Global Dimming (Ruvy’s link in #55) are true, there is an explanation as to WHY the debate on GW continues. The development of alternative energy sources cannot be delayed.

Irene Wagner

Clavos, that’s for sure there are many good-hearted and cerebrally endowed (and experienced!) workers in the traditional energy industry. I guess the biggest problem I see is: who is going to coordinate all this effort? Who is going to make sure the money from the grants and tax breaks end up going where they’re supposed to go? (The UN? NEVAAAH. Just kidding, sort of.)

Something for smarter people than me to figure out. Trying to eliminate some of the grass-roots bickering is the way I try to help out. I am fueled by your encouragement and Dr. D’s daily dose of puns.

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

Irene,

There are many things I don’t talk about here at BC. Among them are efforts to develop alternative fuels and ways to end pollution. There is a lot of technology out here looking for funding for massive applications that can end forever dependence on fossil fuels for use in running automotive vehicles.

Petroleum will still be necessary to manufacture plastic boxes to hold non-food items (like the guts of a computer), and as a lubricant for engines, but much can be done to do away with it otherwise.

Also, try to remember that silicon abounds here in the sand and rocks.

Finally, as a matter of religious doctrine, while only G-d knows when the time for the messianic redemption will be right, it is believed by many many rabbis to be likely finished by the year 2030 (5790 according to the rabbinic calendar). If this doesn’t occur and the reading of the Talmud has been wrong all these centuries, it is believed that messianic redemption will occur by the year 6000 on the rabbinic calendar – 232 years from now.

I’m glad to see that Clavos is coming to appreciate your writing, as I do, even if, like me, he doesn’t necessarily agree with what you say.

Michael S

G Alston:

The problem is that we have seen a 1.5 degree F rise in just over 100 years, which is quite substantial. If it’s natural and not due to the rise of GHGs (the elephant in the room), the cause should stick out like a sore thumb. Simply stating “it’s natural” under the pretense that no specifics are necessary to explain it is a cop out.

By your analogy of tracks in the yard, no one is pointing to aliens. They’re pointing to the 4×4 sitting just off the yard with muddy tires every day. And your response is either, “Tracks just happen,” or “I don’t know what caused the tracks, I just know it definitely can’t possibly be that muddied up 4×4!” When the tracks keep happening with increasing frequency, at some point, you better find out where they’re coming from and stop ignoring the truck.

Clavos

“I guess the biggest problem I see is: who is going to coordinate all this effort? Who is going to make sure the money from the grants and tax breaks end up going where they’re supposed to go?”

That, of course, is the crux.

The facile answer is the government. I have problems with that, which I have enumerated frequently on these threads, but it may well be the only answer.

And after all, the young NASA DID put a man on the moon per Kennedy’s vision…

Tony

Irene,

Regulating the tax cuts for clean energy is easy. Since we are spending nearly 275 million a day in Iraq we could stop building little Iraqi children schools and start worrying about our own citizens and economy by creating a government division to to enact this process. We could go a step further and eliminate the IRS and the Federal Reserve (since they are arguably unconstitutional anyway) and replace them with a much smaller organization that investigates the companies clean energy claims and then awards the incentives based on a merrit system. Even better, the government could contract out private companies to do these investigation pumping more money into the economy. Lots of options, lots of ways to make it work, especially if we start using American tax dollars for the benefit of Americans instead of Iraqis. The only necessity would be total transluceny on the level of public reporting stating which companies received the incentives and which critera they met.

Clavos

Tony,

I have a problem with your idea of letting the government administer the allocation of funding, given that the government is easily the most corrupt and inept organization in the US.

These are the same people who misdealt with the Katrina aftermath, and who run Medicare and the Department Of Homeland Security. They involved us in Vietnam, and now in Iraq.

While I don’t see any other organization we could turn it over to, turning it over to the stumblebums in the government is truly scary.

Baronius

We shouldn’t be coordinating efforts to find renewable energy. There are a half-dozen possible energy sources that kind of work (not that well) on a small scale. We don’t know which of them, if any, will be successful on a large scale. For the time being, we need to have lots of uncoordinated efforts.

I think solar energy is our best answer, by the way. But we haven’t found an efficient way to store the power from it. I hope we figure it out, because it’s so readily accessible. But I wouldn’t want to see government or the private sector invest all of their effort into it, because wind power makes a lot of sense too. So does geothermal, and the power of the mighty atom. Et cetera.

In the case of NASA, we all pretty much agreed where the moon is. We had a fairly specific goal in the 1960’s. Beyond that, you’ve got the fundamental difference between left and right. The left thinks that global warming is so important that the government should be in the forefront. The right, even those of us who are skeptical about global warming, think that energy is so important that we need to keep the government away from it.

I think that Tony and Winston are both trying to make a valid point. They’re trying to bridge the gap and say that this is a win-win issue. But they have no idea how to talk to the right, or even what the right is thinking. I mean, religious nuts obeying corporate puppetmasters? It’s hard to believe that Tony is serious when he says that, but that’s how he reads the politics of GW. It’s like Bart Simpson learning Spanish during his flight to Brazil. He’s trying to speak our language, bless his heart, but he doesn’t even know what language it is.

I’m sure that my description of the left sounds alien to the lefties on this site. And I’m sorry about that. Part of the problem is that I don’t understand you; part of it is that I think you’re wrong. But I can bridge the gap this much: your religious nuts scare us the same as ours scare you. You ignore the hippie nature-worshippers at your table, but they freak us out. We don’t even notice the (few) anti-science people on our side either, but I guess they terrify you.

It’s more than that, though. We’re always going to walk away when you start talking about multinational coordination. You’re never going to listen to us when Exxon sponsors our conferences. We both need to figure out how much of this barrier is bad communication and how much is legitimate difference. We also need to figure out how much of the GW debate is blind distrust on our side, or bandwagon mentality on yours. Maybe then we can start talking.

Baronius

Clavos, every time I type something, I see you’ve stated it first and pithier. Jerk.

Clavos

I do the same thing, Baronius; I’m forever reading down a thread to a particularly juicy comment that begs to be answered, and jumping on it only to discover after mine is published, that someone else already did, better.

Nonetheless, I’m flattered, my friend.

Tony

I don’t have to bridge any gaps to the right. If you think George Bush II is a republican then go read a book on Barry Goldwater and learn something about what conservatism truely is.

I don’t feel the need to define myself by standing on one side or the other. I am a supply sider who feels that the democrates get it right on issues pertaining to civil liberties, equality, and this time around the war; post invasion obviously as they buckled to their knees at the alter of public opinion before this mess started.

The truth is I can be very far to the left on some issues and to the right on others (mainly economic) but that’s because I don’t feel the need to adopt every single standpoint of a particular group.

When I spoke of allocating tax breaks it was not aimed at finding alternative energy. The tax breaks would be given to companies that adapted their facilities and operations to meet a variety of green standards. A oompany may not meet admissions bonus standards but may receive a break because of their methods of waste disposal.

But no…..you can’t be open to ideas you didn’t hear first on Fox news. GOD forbid! .

Pablo

Well said Tony. I agree wholeheartedly with your above post. The conservatives of the day are imho much more akin to totalitarians, with big government deficit spending to the extreme. The PNAC document sums up very well what these neo-cons are really about. It has nothing to do with individual rights, the constitution, or behaving in a civilized humane fashion towards their neighbors. The homeland security state, is nothing more than the erection of a legal police state, where all citizens are monitored via gps systems 24/7, and presumed guilty until proven innocent. How far we have fallen.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Clavos, every time I type something, I see you’ve stated it first and pithier.

Hmm… ‘pithier’. Comparative form of the word ‘pithy’. Now – who uses that word…?

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy.” (emphasis added)
-Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

Wirth also served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton administration. He is currently president of the UN Foundation.

He is not a scientist, but he obviously IS a socialist, prepared to use GW, whether or not it is a valid scientific theory, to advance his socialist goals.

No matter the protestations of the believers; the issue of GW transcends mere environmentalism. It is clearly a political issue as well.

zingzing

and a business issue, clavos. don’t forget the money to be made.

Clavos

Absolutely right, zing.

Maurice

Clavos,

excellant point. I think all of us care about Mother Earth and want the best for her. I ride my motorcyclel instead of my car so I can consume and polute less. I reuse my RV antifreeze each year when I winterize my RV. I don’t have the eco-groovy house that George W. Bush has but I don’t squander resources like Al Gore either.

My main problem with environMentalism is the emotionalism involved. My wife gave me crap about not recycling my beer cans. We lived in Detroit at the time and the recycling program was not up and running so they would just haul the cans to the dump. My emotional wife was still upset!

Lets be rational about these emotional issues.

Baronius

Dread, if I follow this conversation, Bill O’Reilly uses the word “pithier” too? I didn’t know that. I’ve never seen his show.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

One of his catchphrases – as you’ll see if you follow the link – is ‘keep it pithy’.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

We lived in Detroit at the time and the recycling program was not up and running so they would just haul the cans to the dump.

There was something like that in Michael Moore’s book Stupid White Men. He describes following a sanitation crew when they picked up the recycling. They drove to the landfill and simply dumped it there along with all the other trash.

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

Maurice,

I didn’t post the stuff about the messianic redemption because i wanted you to believe in G-d. What you believe is your business.

I did post the stuff about messianic redemption for Irene’s information, though.

I posted the links about global dimming because they provide clear reasons for the theories of global warming not seeming to have effect. You don’t want to believe them, you don’t have to. In the end, its your skin cancer, not mine. As for the asbestos, if you are so skeptical, work with the stuff and see what happens to your lungs. But it’s a true capitalist’s proposition when you gamble with your health. You can’t “socialize” the loss. YOU get to die, not the society around you.

I realize that you are not davka an evil person, and it is the emotionalism of some environmentalists that pisses you off. It pisses me off, too. I am not a tree hugger by any means. But, when you learn about the Jewish Sabbath, you learn lots of lessons about the environment, even if you do not mean to. And being that I do try to observe the laws of the Jewish Sabbath, I do know how a person is not supposed to, among other things, even kick a rock around. G-d’s universe is to be left untouched, and the Jew is supposed to contemplate it. That is the purpose of the laws that Jews (and not non-Jews) are required to observe.

I have one of those toilets in my apartment (mandated by EPA), Maurice.

It doesn’t really take six flushes, but often requires two, and sometimes three.

My wife and I laugh our asses off at the idiots in the government every time it happens.

stormy

I posted one post the other day and then return to….holy cow, all heck breaks loose and the discussion moves to religion!! Back to the topic at hand….

Michael S wrote:

“The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation.”

That’s incorrect. You’re putting all of your eggs in a trace gas called CO2 which comprises less than .04% of the atmosphere. I’m putting my eggs in an extraordinarily powerful, variable star called the sun. It’s apparently a fairly strong influence seasonly as well as daily, considering the temperature in my backyard can vary 40 or more degrees in a day. I’ll give you a list of scientists as long as a bad Woody Allen movie who agree with “it’s the sun, stupid.”

Tony wrote:

“So, again I ask the question. If global warming is not real that we can just pump whatever we want into our atmosphere and nothing will happen? I mean you really, seriously believe that?”

Tony, you have a very static view of the atmosphere. That is, everything that enters the atmosphere stays there until the end of time. Here’s a novel idea for you: CO2 is absorbed by plant life (remember photosynthesis in your 9th grade biology class?) and is also absorbed/released by the oceans. As far as pumping “pollutants” into the environment, hell no…I never said I was for that. As far as CO2 emissions, I’m not concerned, nor should you be. For those promoting solar, well, that’s just swell. We can cover Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and New York State with solar panels…and power, I don’t know, maybe 1/3 the country. SUPER!! I say let’s go nuke. You’ll save yourselves from the dreaded and scary (and harmless) CO2, and the rest of us will be happy with clean domestic energy

Here is an interesting (and short) article about the disappearance of harlequins. Here is a classic quote from a scientist that uses a familiar argument:

“Arguing about whether we can or cannot already see the effects,” he said, “is like sitting in a house soaked in gasoline, having just dropped a lit match, and arguing about whether we can actually see the flames yet, while waiting to see if maybe it might go out on its own.”

Maurice

Clavos

…laugh our asses off…

I think I get the pun here…..

stormy

Maurice…thanks for posting the link to the article re: the disappearance of the harlequins.

This is actually a perfect example of biologists (non-climate scientists) automatically throwing their credentials/weight on to the climate alarm bandwagon. If they would stick to their research in an unbiased fashion, they should be determining if the extinction was actually due to varied climate. End of story. But no, their activism comes through as they automatically imply that man is responsible for climate change, which in turn is causing the extinction of the harlequins. That’s where I have a profound problem with this nonsense. If these biologists want to debate anthropegenic global warming with someone who similarly does not have a climate science background, I’d be happy to take them on. My background and education is Mechanical Engineering, which provides me a much better understanding of the physical sciences than they have. Yet. I’m sure these folks are included among the “thousands of scientists” who believe we’re adversely affecting the climate. One problem – they have absolutely no credibility in that field (less than me, if that’s possible!). Thanks again for posting however, it was an interesting article. For the record, I am pro amphibian and unlike the scientists in the article, I did not have the stomach to dissect them in high school!!!

Maurice

Stormy,

I am an electrical engineer and have been designing semiconductors for 26 years. Even with my (supposedly) keen scientific mind I have been led down the path you are describing. That shows me that the media has done a good job of mixing these issues all together.

Thanks for the pragmatic slap in the face.

stormy

Maurice…thanks for the note. If you are an engineer, it’s probably your nature to question things. I’m not about to say that we’re not affecting the climate at all, but I am willing to say it’s minute in the scheme of things. If you take some time to look at the issue from a scientific perspective, it’s clear that Climatology is in the dark ages. Most of the issue is politics, not science right now. For instance, the reporting today of the ice shelf that just collapsed in Antarctica. The reporting of this is quite clever, or very naive. At the end it happens to mention that this shelf is part of the Antarctic penninsula. A little research and you’ll find that the penninsula has warmed significantly, but it comprises about 5% of the continent – Antarctica as a whole has not warmed -in fact, it’s cooled as a whole by one degree since we began measuring temps there about 50 years ago. You won’t find the media reporting that minor fact. It would be like saying the U.S. is warming, when in fact just Florida was warming and the rest of the country was cooling. Extremely deceptive. I think the right word would be propaganda. Use your engineering abilities of query and you might be surprised at the nonsense that abounds….this has become a religion of sorts and barely resembles science anymore. Scientists that are skeptics are labeled as heretics and their reputations are attacked severely (they are shills for the oil/gas industry, etc.), when in fact they are just seeking the truth. When one side of an argument can only make personal attacks against the other because they can’t effectively debate the issues, it reeks of desparation. I’d start my search for truth with Richard Lindzen of MIT. BTW, he pointed out that the car he drives isn’t nearly as nice as those driven by the global warmers. If he wanted to make a fortune he’d switch sides on the debate. That’s where the $$ are. Later!

Maurice

Stormy,

Richard Lindzen has been discussed at length on these threads.

Interesting of you to mention that ..this has become a religion of sorts and barely resembles science anymore. Scientists that are skeptics are labeled as heretics….

I’d really love to hear how the warming skeptics explain the phenomina of all those countries that lined up to sign and ratify the Kyoto treaty except us. I guess we members of the “church” of global warming are not the only one’s fooled. In fact, the governments of Australia, Canada, The entire EU, India, and even the freakin’ Russins have all been duped by this leftist conspiracy.

Wow guys! You have to have one hell of a marketing plan to dupe the heads of the world’s most industrialized nations.

Even the People’s Republic of China claims that they are striving to reduce emissions even if, because of the economic ramifications, they are not.

Some countries jumped right in, others declined because of economic reasons, but the good old US of A is the only nation to actually deny that the problem even exists.

stormy

Maurice,

Thanks for the link! I missed that when it was posted earlier. There is a lot to it!!

As for the “scientists”, I’ve spoken and emailed with about a dozen climate scientists. You generally won’t find (with very few exceptions) any of them purporting the hysteria we see that’s being fueled by “activists.”

My online debates with some folks generally ended with them incapable of countering my arguments when they got to the end of their 3-fold Sierra Club or Greenpeace leaflet, which was generally filled with easily refutable rubbish. Out of frustration, their last post would normally be, “you must work for the oil and gas lobby.” I don’t work in that area and never have… but I love science and I love truth. These folks are incapable of critical thought, scientific inquiry and thinking for themselves – they’ve been completely greenwashed. I’m very pro-environment, pro-alternative energy (for energy independence reasons)… but, I’m against wasting trillions to fight a fictitious monster, when that money could be better spent on genuine environmental issues (Geez, I’m beginning to sound like Bjorn Lomborg). Thanks again. BTW, if you’re interested in a bit of satire from 10 years ago (and yes, I believe that site is actually funded by the oil/gas lobby!!!!)

Doug Hunter

“Wow guys! You have to have one hell of a marketing plan to dupe the heads of the world’s most industrialized nations.”

Not really. It’s never hard to sell a government official on a new reason to tax and regulate. (money and power)

Maurice

Stormy,

funny link! I have read a little about Bjorn Lomborg. Not a bad guy to mimic.

Tony, you shouldn’t take offense to any of this stuff. I’m finding some of the discussion interesting.

As for your comment regarding the nations that piled on to Kyoto, that’s an excellent and valid question. Again, Kyoto was about politics and little to do about science. Even the adherents of Kyoto admitted that compliance with it would have virtually no effect on the climate. A combination of “bandwagon effect”, “political correctness”, “peer pressure”, etc. led to Kyoto ratification. Now, here’s a trick question – who killed Kyoto for the U.S.? Yes, officially it was Pres. G.W. Bush, but many environmentalists will tell you it was Pres. Bill Clinton. The bottom line is that Clinton wanted to play the Kyoto game and “look good” by participating in Kyoto (which was political), but he understood the detriments it posed to our country economically. Good for him – a very smart guy. He demanded certain things in the protocol, including credit for carbon sinks (forests, etc.) and India/China participation. Europe was aghast and realized that the U.S. would basically have to make no sacrifices with carbon sinks being counted. That terrified them as they saw Kyoto as a means to give them an economic advantage over us – with carbon sinks, they were screwed and we would be rewarded – they said “no way.” In hindsight, it looks like they didn’t need Kyoto to get that economic advantage anyway! When Clinton left office, they actually came back to us wanting us to just play ball and offered something similar to what Clinton had requested. Bush said fahgetaboutit, we’re out.

CO2 is not a pollutant….95% of it is naturally ocurring….plant life thrives on it….if you removed all greenhouse gasses (e.g., CO2, Methane, CFCs, etc.) except water vapor (which, interestingly, you can’t tax), you’d still have most of the greenhouse effect intact (actually, about 95%…I love that number). This is much ado about nothing…except research dollars, high salaried cushy environmental jobs and another means for gov’t to tax. It’s a win/win for everyone, except for you and me.

All the best….Stormy

stormy

How many times have we seen the word “unprecedented” when this subject is discussed in recent years?

from the Washington Post:

“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”

Wait a second…Huh. Upon further review, that article is from November 2nd…1922. Yeah, as in 86 years ago and counting.

But wait, there’s more….

“A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated.”

“2000 square leagues [approximately 14,000 square miles or 36,000 square kilometers] of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N [roughly NNE of Jan Mayen] have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared.”

“The floods which have the whole summer inundated all those parts of Germany where rivers have their sources in snowy mountains, afford ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened …”

hmmm, extracts from a letter by the President of the Royal Society addressed to the British Admiralty, recommending they send a ship to the Arctic to investigate the dramatic changes.

The letter was written….in the year 1817. Must have been those blasted SUVs back then. I’d say the current nonsense is…well…unprecedented.
P.S. Maurice…thanks for the tip on using links!!

Tony

No offense taken at all. I am actually really happy that my first post in the politics section of this magazine got such a passionate response. That was really the point.

To read arguments from the intelligent people on this site and having real, fact based discussion, gives me faith that not everyone in this country has given in to mass apathy.

stormy

Tony wrote: “To read arguments from the intelligent people on this site and having real, fact based discussion, gives me faith that not everyone in this country has given in to mass apathy.”

I concur!! Definitely some independent thinkers on here of varying opinions. It’s a good thing and the result is civil debate/discussion. I haven’t participated in a global warming discussion on line for a number of years. Became a bit disenchanted with the erosion of the discussions into questioning my lack of a degree in Climate Science (it’s basically a hobby and my engineering background generally provided greater science grounding than my attackers!)…and then the inevitable attack that I was working for the oil/gas industry or lobby (which I wasn’t). It was frustrating. That hasn’t happened here so I’m pleased!

Maurice

I have been guilty of being overly glib concerning this issue. But now this is super, super serious!

jesse neils

im old greg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

adaniel

It looks as if climate change is too complex for today’s democracies. Reading the article and the comments at the same time I see that we have a very similar global warming debate in Europe. It has a different focus, even a different tone, but at the end of the political process there is equally nothing.

For the EU the current American governments skepticism has became a political identity building tool in world politics. However, there is almost no rational debate on the issue in Europe, either. The EU is promoting the Kyoto Protocol, which has proven that is very costly and does not reduce the level of carbon-dioxide emissions. (Not only the US, but China, Russia and India, other main emitters besides the EU are not participating in this trading system). Promoting solar energy in Germany is great for German industrialists who produce the stuff but as useful as if Canada would switch to solar energy.

I believe that today’s electorates are used to much narrower focused debates where they can spot the lobby groups, their own interest and gather the basic facts. Although climate change has no meaningful public debate in either side of the Atlantic, a much narrower case, biofuels does!

Maddy and Mr. Young

Global warming is sooooooooo not true!!! And for all of you idiotic tree huggers who do beleive it-ur WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

Cannonshop

Maddy, I’m sure hoping that was sarcasm.

Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change is inevitable humans or not. Climate is NOT STATIC. Around AD 1000, Greenland was wheat country and they were growing french wine grapes in north Scotland.

a Bit longer ago, Egypt was green and the Sahara was a fairly fertile plain a bit like Kansas in terms of climate.

A Few hundered years ago, Chaco Canyon in new mexico, Mesa Verde, and Crow Canyon were good country for corn and fairly good land for living an agricultural existence. There are some (Fringe) archaeologists who think the Persian gulf might well have been a low-land valley during the ice age-much like the Chesepeake Bay was.

Climate Changes.

The debate about WHY is what isn’t finished, or settled.

The planetary orbit is not ‘stable’-earth wobbles under the gravitational influence of the moon and sun, the tilt of the axis is not fixed, the orbit itself is elliptical and varies-there are some hypotheses that indicate (based on fossil evidence) that ice ages occur suddenly (in geological terms), that the climate may change unpredictably.

Finally, there’s the small (but not inconsiderable) issue of what probes are telling us all- probes sent into the Atlantic to measure temperature increases in 2003 aren’t recording any change. Most Humanocentric global warming hypotheses rely on oceanic warming. Sattelites sent up to measure climate and weather (and take many times the number of readings that ground-based stations even CAN) aren’t showing significant warming either, and certainly nothing at the rates or magnitude that the computer models insist it should be occurring at.

Finally: we’ve been able to meaure local microclimates reliably for only about 300 years or so. The global climate hasn’t been measurable in any reliable sense longer than about 50 years (if that long). Humanity is 250.000 years old if you go to the earliest recognizably “Human” hominids. Earth itself is estimated 4000000000 years old.

Finally, short term predictability of local microclimates is only reliable NOW up to about 48 hours with a reliability of more than about 60%.

Globally, you’re talking MACRO climate, which includes all of those microclimates. Considering that economic modeling (which has fewer variables and works along predictable rules that are rather well understood indeed) has a rather poor record of success (witness the failure of centrally planed economics in the Soviet Union and pre-reform Communist China) but a better record than weather forecasting, the discussion and the need to do REAL SCIENCE before making policy decisions is real.

The Evidence gathered in the experiments does not jibe with the explanation of the phenomena, therefore, the explanation is what is incorrect, not the data.

http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

I try to be generous with people whom I disagree with, but I have trouble finding any way to accept that Mr Tobis is even intending to be honest with this nonsense excuse for an article. For starters, he wants to paint it that the opposition to global warming propaganda is coming from Christian evangelicals as some kind of religious issue. It is not. He’s just completely making that up out of the air.

Also of course, opposition to destroying the economy and surrendering our industry and pretty much of our economic liberty to the likes of Al Gore couldn’t be based on a lot of people honestly disagreeing. No, it must be an evil conspiracy by Evil Capitalists (a redundant phrase, surely).

To answer the title of the essay, no there isn’t even really a debate. This is because the global warming true believers (the real religious faith element here) won’t actually debate. They declare that they are irrefutably, inarguably correct. Then they put out ad hominem straw man attacks like this article claiming that the only opposition to their plans to rule the world comes from the stupid (religious folk) and the evil (businessmen).

damn, my grammar is offal (as in fecal output), too many ‘finally’ when it should have been ‘alsos’…ah well.

Cannonshop

Al, ya gotta understand-once upon a time, Colleges tried to teach people to think critically, to examine statements and assertions, to use evidence and consider counter-arguments on their own merits.

There’s plenty of fanatics on both sides of this issue, and the strawman argument is a favoured chestnut of political conflicts, while Academia has diverged from considering all the evidence available to a dogmatic approach centred on Grants and Political/Social Acceptability.

It’s socially acceptable to be very ‘green’ and environmentalist, it’s politically easy to back ‘green’ sounding causes, even in the face of hard evidence.

it’s HARD to go against the consensus and demand that ethical standards be upheld when addressing a ‘Movement’, especially when said movement can be used and abused for political gain by ones allies.

MOST of the people who are willing to stay in Academia tend to be big-government folks, and “Global Warming” is kind of a porkbarrel bonanza for them. The best scientific minds, unfortunately, tend to be involved in, as the movie “Idiocracy” pointed out, regrowing hair and prolonging erections.

Professor Mann’s infamous “Hockeystick” graph showing runaway global warming a few years ago is a prime example-a guy with a Masters degree in math showed you can get the same results inputting random numbers in place of the recorded measuring data, meaning the model relies on cooked books.

Cooked books or not, it was sufficient to justify Kyoto in the minds of painted-prince politicians and luddite activists, who rightly spotted a chance to exploit an apocalyptic scenario for an immediate gain in prominence and power.

Americans are a moralistic bunch, so are Europeans, whether they admit it or not, and a chance to find a “New, secular Sin” to condemn is a great opportunity to exploit those urges for a gain in authority and power.

http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

So then Cannonshop, which are you: A stupid Christian or an evil tool on the payroll of Halliburton? We’re putting you on the list for our eventual prosecution of environmental war criminals.

Cannonshop

heheheh… Worse. I’m an Infidel, an Unbeliever, a Skeptic, Amatuer scientist, shade-tree mechanic and all those other nasty things, unfortunately, Halliburton doesn’t have to buy me, and I don’t get on well with god, goddess, or any of those other higher powers people allege exist.

I’m a fanatic’s worst nightmare-I think for myself.

So, when I’m burnt at the stake as a heretic, will it be with ethanol, corn-oil, or what? I hope it’s a renewable resource!

Jimmy

Global warming is a problem, but we all have to die. I believe the world will come to an end someday and perhaps we will just have to blame this one on mankind.

Either we grow up and band together to solve the problem…or we wind up like Venus.

We CAN solve the problem – or at least minimize the damage – but ONLY if conservatives and Republicans (and all others who insist that 90% of the world’s climatologists are either crazy or too afraid to speak up) will start allowing the facts to determine their belief rather than demanding that their belief must determine the facts.

Global-warming deniers BEGIN with the premise that either there’s no such thing or that if there is, that the earth is too big for mankind to really have an impact.

What they don’t realize is the choice we have:

(A) If we DO address global warming, and global warming does turn out to be the utter myth that they claim, then we have some economic damage…but nothing on the scale of, say, the current crisis, much less that of the world wars.

(B) If we DO NOT address global warming and it turns out to be TRUE, then we face worldwide catastrophe on a scale FAR worse than WWII.

So that’s your choice, Jimmy – do something, or do not…but remember the risk that either choice entails.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

I’m just perplexed about Cannonshop’s forecast (#118) of his impending doom by immolation. What he doesn’t seem to have taken into account is that we can’t burn him at the stake using ethanol or anything else, because that in itself would contribute to global warming. We’ll just have to freeze him in nitrogen and then pulverize him. It won’t be nearly as spectacular or painful, but at least it won’t harm the planet.

Cindy D

(wonders how Glenn treats his wife when she’s feeling down)

Cindy D

That was too funny Dr.D. Remind me sometime to convince you to let me read one of your books.

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Cindy –

I have to wonder why you asked that. The way I take your question is as an implication that I am not a good man to my wife. Is there anything I’ve posted showing that my character is badly flawed, that I’m a crude, stubborn ass? I hope not.

But to answer your question:

Footrubs several times a week, hot peppermint tea, listening to her dreams and taking them seriously, going for long walks holding hands. If she’s too mad I keep my mouth shut until she’s ready to talk, and then I listen to her concerns and discuss the matter without judgment.

Flowers, on the other hand, I reserve for the required special occasions and for the even more important ‘just because’ moments.

FYI, I agree with Robert Heinlein that women are generally more intelligent than men…and my wife’s a wonderful example. For all my vaunted ‘book-learnin’, she’s more intelligent and more grounded in reality than am I. I might have a wealth of facts at hand (and I usually do), but she’s the one who knows what to do with those facts. You could say I’m the tool store, and she’s the craftsperson who uses those tools (no off-color references intended). One without the other is pretty much useless…but together they can accomplish much.

And on a more personal note, not having been raised with a father figure around the house (ever!), I gained most of my values of how to be a good husband and dad from books. Most would see that as tragically insufficient, but it has served me well and most of all, kept my wife generally happy since I do try my best to be a gentleman in public AND in private.

I hope this reassures you as to my character. Perhaps not, for it is difficult to ascertain such merely across cyberspace…but I don’t know how else to give you such reassurance.

Cindy D

G-man,

It was just a random thought after reading #120.

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Cindy –

No, your thought was not ‘random’. There was a reason that it came to your mind, and that you made the physical effort to post that reason online.

Your comment #125 leads me to suspect that you assume my conduct towards women in general and my wife in particular are lacking…otherwise, I think it unlikely that you would have dodged my question to you.

I may be wrong on this or that, but you’ll never see me knowingly post a falsehood. Please bear that in mind concerning my post #124.

I’m not here to be liked, but to teach and to learn (hence the gratitude I show when someone proves me wrong). I may be too quick to accuse and too quick to humility, but I am never insincere in serious matters.

And I would caution you to perhaps be more circumspect when questioning another’s character in the future (and yes, I am guilty of the same).

Cindy D

Okay. I’ll just be plain. It wasn’t about women. Just people. You seemed to be yelling at Jimmy.

It just made me wonder. That was all.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Doc, re # 121

Nitrogen has to be compressed, cooled and liquefied to be effective. According to my calculations, the preparation and use of liquid nitrogen would be 58.98797% (plus or minus 70%) more damaging to the environment than simple immolation. And, of course, it is at least possible that the escaping nitrogen would damage the Ozone layer.

(Bishop)Dan(Miller)

Detects a horse emitting methane and runs to make it stop.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Your Bishopness,

How much would it change your calculations if I were to assure you that the power for the nitrogen freezing process comes entirely from our own wind turbine generator?

Also, we use atmospheric nitrogen, of which there is an abundance. That byproduct which escapes into the atmosphere merely replenishes what we took out in the first place.

Tony

#120 is one of the few posts that got what I was trying to get across by writing this. My point was not to debate science. Unless you are an actual scientist you are simply regurgitating facts from someone elses conclusions.

The point here was that logic makes ideas like “the greenhouse effect” pretty feasible and we have more to lose doing nothing than we do acting.

Post 119 is great because I believe it gets to the heart of the skeptics. While on this article many have messaged saying they dispute global warming to prevent some kind of international new world order, I’m still not convinced that most of the opposition isn’t from Christian fanatics who believe in things like the Dominion Theory. The world is ending, lets use up the resources that God bestowed upon us. Insanity.

I appreciate the renewed interest and discussion on this article. I thought it was pretty much left for dead. Thank you to everyone for making this a good, lengthy debate.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

That’s the beauty of Blogcritics, Tony: someone random drops in and makes a comment, then us regulars see it on the Fresh Comments page and surf over to put in our $0.02’s worth.

I’ve seen many a ‘dead’ thread suddenly sparked back into life in this way.

Tony

Yeah this is a great site. In so many forums only one view is represented but — for me personally — I actually do fall in the middle (socially liberal, Rockefeller economic conservative) so I love that there is such vigorous debate from both sides.

Obviously this article was written in an inflammatory tone to create debate, which I think it has sucessfully done. But even still, the responses were mostly informative and educated, regardless of the viewpoint expressed.

http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

We CAN solve the problem – or at least minimize the damage – but ONLY if conservatives and Republicans (and all others who insist that 90% of the world’s climatologists are either crazy or too afraid to speak up) will start allowing the facts to determine their belief rather than demanding that their belief must determine the facts.

Last I checked more and more of the world’s climatologists are admitting that anthropogenic global warming probably isn’t actually a problem. AGW certainly has never been supported by anything like 90% of the climate scientist community.

Global-warming deniers

Your use of the word ‘deniers’ shows where the fanaticism is. You assume that there is an absolute, revealed truth about global warming and that any who are skeptical about it or want more investigation are somehow heretics and deluded. When did science turn against people asking questions?

BEGIN with the premise that either there’s no such thing or that if there is, that the earth is too big for mankind to really have an impact.

And you begin from the unchallengable assumption that humans must be the cause of global warming, even though there is plenty of evidence to suggest that other causes are far more significant.

Dave

Tony

The problem is people who say they don’t believe global warming is occuring more often than not have an agenda that would be far less cost effective or profitable with an increase in environmental regulations or a decrease in fossil fuel consumption.

If the evidence presented already isn’t enough to convince people that global warming is occurring than those people will never be convinced. I mean even NASA has stated clearly that global warming is occurring because of man’s activities.

“Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800’s. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth’s surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun’s energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.”

That is straight from the NASA web site. So if you don’t think global warming is occurring because of human activity you either are challenging NASA’s science or insinuating that they have some alterior motive and have altered their findings to fit their agenda.

Cindy D

Tony,

Do you know anything about global dimming?

Tony

I wish Republicans would have demanded such thorough evidence before we started sending American citizens into Iraq to be SHOT AT.

It’s amazing to me how to this day Bush supporters will explain how the evidence pointed to this, and the intelligence pointed to that, in the face of a mountain of evidence that points to the weakness of what they acted upon.

So when it involves sending our troops into harms way the country acts on a whim against all logical thinking, but when it comes to not pumping chemicals into our atmosphere even NASA’s word isn’t good enough. Unreal. Shows the totally distorted priorities of the citizens of this nation, and our apathy towards war and death. Send our kids off to die but don’t regulate our emissions!

Tony

Not a lot. I know it has to do with aerosol particles in the atmosphere and I’ve heard that it can mask the greenhouse effect.

I believe it’s direct effect is on the water cycle. Beyond that I can’t say I’m well informed on the topic. So please, elaborate.

Cindy D

I’m not informed at all. I was looking for more information without reading an article.

I think its supposed to have a cooling effect–the particles, gases (whatever). Which supposedly counters the warming effect. So that when the sources of the warming are removed the cooling effect is diminished and global warming accelerates.

That’s my basic understanding. I could be off a bit too.

Cindy D

I wish Republicans everyone would have demanded such thorough evidence before we started sending American citizens into Iraq to be SHOT AT.

Tony

Good point Cindy I stand corrected. While this was the Republican brainchild, and while they were its biggest cheerleaders, the Democrats handed over their Constitutional right to declare war and fell in line like the rest of the country. Trust me, my disdain touches both sides but the reality is that while Democrats had no back bone and put their political careers before the people, Republicans orchestrated, promoted, and perverted this mess and are more directly responsible. That said, blame falls on both sides without a doubt.

Also, throwing Democrats into the analogy just didn’t fit because they do understand the science of global warming.

Tony

This is what I found on wikipedia. I didn’t feel like going much more indepth but this should give you a start if you’re interested in the topic.

“It is thought that global dimming was probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action.[2] Aerosols and other particulates absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back into space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. Water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles.[3] Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the earth’s surface.

Clouds intercept both heat from the sun and heat radiated from the Earth. Their effects are complex and vary in time, location, and altitude. Usually during the daytime the interception of sunlight predominates, giving a cooling effect; however, at night the re-radiation of heat to the Earth slows the Earth’s heat loss.”

“Pollution produced by humans may be seriously weakening the Earth’s water cycle — reducing rainfall and threatening fresh water supplies. A 2001 study by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography suggests that tiny particles of soot and other pollutants have a significant effect on the hydrological cycle. According to Professor V. Ramanathan: “The energy for the hydrological cycle comes from sunlight. As sunlight heats the ocean, water escapes into the atmosphere and falls out as rain. So as aerosols cut down sunlight by large amounts, they may be spinning down the hydrological cycle of the planet.”[37]

Large scale changes in weather patterns may also have been caused by global dimming. Climate models speculatively suggest that this reduction in sunshine at the surface may have led to the failure of the monsoon in sub-Saharan Africa during the 1970s and 1980s, together with the associated famines such as the Sahel drought, caused by Northern hemisphere pollution cooling the Atlantic.[38] Because of this, the Tropical rain belt may not have risen to its northern latitudes, thus causing an absence of seasonal rains. This claim is not universally accepted and is very difficult to test.

It is also concluded that the imbalance between global dimming and global warming at the surface leads to weaker turbulent heat fluxes to the atmosphere. This means globally reduced evaporation and hence precipitation occur in a dimmer and warmer world, which could ultimately lead to a more humid atmosphere in which it rains less.[39]

A natural form of large scale environmental shading/dimming has been identified that affected the 2006 northern hemisphere hurricane season. The NASA study found that several major dust storms in June and July in the Sahara desert sent dust drifting over the Atlantic Ocean and through several effects caused cooling of the waters — and thus dampening the development of hurricanes.[40][41]”

“Some scientists have suggested using aerosols to stave off the effects of global warming as an emergency geoengineering measure.[46] Russian expert Mikhail Budyko understood this relationship very early on. In 1974, he suggested that if global warming became a problem, the planet could be cooled by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze.[47][48][49] According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling.[50]

However, Earth would still face many problems, such as:

Using sulfates causes environmental problems such as acid rain[51]
Using carbon black causes human health problems[51]
Dimming causes ecological problems such as changes in evaporation and rainfall patterns[51]
Droughts and/or increased rainfall cause problems for agriculture[51]
Aerosol has a relatively short lifetime
In a weblog posting, Gavin Schmidt stated that “Ideas that we should increase aerosol emissions to counteract global warming have been described as a ‘Faustian bargain’ because that would imply an ever increasing amount of emissions in order to match the accumulated greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, with ever increasing monetary and health costs.”[52]”

Even examining this topic, I think its another example that when you pump chemicals into the atmosphere that either shouldn’t be there, or shouldn’t be there in heightened amounts, there are unnatural consequences.

http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

I mean even NASA has stated clearly that global warming is occurring because of man’s activities.

“To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.”

Dave

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

What’s not in dispute is that the planet is warming up at a time when the Earth’s natural orbital variation is taking it further away from the Sun, which implies that a period of cooling might be expected.

That human activity is contributing to that warming process is also beyond doubt. What remains unclear is the amount of unacceptable risk that warming presents to we humans.

Dave’s quote seems slightly misleading, firstly, though less importantly, he describes Griffin as a NASA Director, when he is in fact described in that article as an administrator.

More importantly, in the very same piece he links to, this paperpusher is contradicted

Griffin’s comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Truthfully Tony. I was being ironic. I don’t think it would have mattered what people opposed it.

Thanks for the info on global dimming.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Chris, ‘Administrator’ is the title given to the director of NASA, so on that score I don’t think Dave was being intentionally misleading.

What Griffin is not, needless to say, is a climate scientist. He’s an aerospace engineer by profession.

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

Doc, maybe he wasn’t being intentionally misleading, but that would call in to question why exactly he changed someone’s job title, and it still doesn’t explain the selective, hence misleading, quoting. Our aim should be to clarify not mud-ify!

One thing is for sure, the world is definitely getting significantly hotter, a change that is going to be disruptive at the very least.

Tony

I really don’t understand what makes this concept so hard to grasp. Whether or not the atmosphere contains natural levels of certain gases and elements, if you unnaturally increase those levels unnatural things will happen.

It’s like takeing a salt water fish tank, containing fish that live in salt water, and dumping loads of salt into it every single day. Obviously there is already salt in the water but continually adding more and more obviously wouldn’t be a good idea. It would alter the environment in which the fish live.

Now this is mass over-simplification but it stands as a basic concept that even non-scientists should be able to grasp.

The earth may be warming naturally but artifically accelerating the process is the problem.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

That’s why I said ‘on that score’, Chris.

It is misleading when global warming sceptics trot out the words of scientists – sometimes singly, sometimes by the thousand via petition or open letter – to support their case.

Because what you invariably find is that most, if not all, of the scientists thus invoked are not climatologists.

If you saw a letter from, say, a bunch of quantum physicists claiming that the marine iguana was an amphibian and not, as previously believed, a lizard, you wouldn’t give it much credit. So why in this case anyone should take seriously the personal opinion of a NASA engineer escapes me.

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

Indeed you did, good Sir Doc.

http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

More importantly, in the very same piece he links to, this paperpusher is contradicted

Griffin’s comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Yes, but Hansen is a lunatic luddite who thinks that scientists who disagree with AGW ought to be tried as criminals, so he’s representative of the most fanatical, irrational element of the AGW crowd.

Dave

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Has anyone noticed that the more someone is against the warnings about global warming, the more likely that person is against the theory of evolution, too?

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com Roger Nowosielski

One thing’s for sure, all you bright and intelligent people. I would be grand to meet you all in person (at least some of you, I think). All I’m left with is what I read on the written page. How’s that for an idea for a new novel? all the people on the Blogcritics I’ve never met.

I like it – Bishop Damn! Would that be a postapocalyptic video game, or a bad translation of the name of a Swedish speed-metal band?

http://www.myspace.com/x15 Douglas Mays

oh god. I am so sick of the stupidity behind this whole global warming thing. I am stunned at what an idiot our planet of humans are.

‘Global warming’ is merely a pop-term for ‘ecological destruction’. Look, mankind is fucking up the earth to the point where mankind (and all living things) will become extinct. Some meteor won’t come crashing to earth or anything. WE DID IT OURSELVES!!!!

Any fucking maggot asshole that wants to sit and debate about global warming can go to hell. It is all real. What a case of denial, using any microscopic piece of evidence to wonder about global warming while the earth slowly dies from every goddamn destructive thing we humans do to it.

We better all get green fast. Or else we can get dead quick while idiots debate global warming. It is amazing how this issue has gotten to this level. Scientists can debate about the specifics of global warming all they want while lemmings of society become rightous morons, blind to the big picture.

Rename it Global Death. It is all real. Clean up this earth really fast. Then again, we can all become dinosaurs an become some oil deposit for the future. A dead planet.

Anyone who thinks global warming is overblown is just being blind to the reality. We are all gonna die much too early thanks to ecological suicide.. Global Warming is just another term for ecological death.

As usual, be stupid an die.

DM

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

DM,

Tnannnk yu for yr kindd wordds of suprt. Unfortrnately, Hour Nigerian bunk acont has ben frozn, butt as son as it thaz, we shl advyse alll.

Yrs inn the bowyls of Mani, ma hiz Holi Namme be Praisd.

Bishp Dam

Clavos

Bish,

If you get a promotion, you could be God Dam…

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Clav,

Unfrtinateli, ther ar otherr contendrs. Wee hop forr 2012.

Bishp Dam

Tony

151 Glenn – I actually talked about this in the article. My idea was basically that you’ve got the people who benefit financially from Global Warming being false, and those people use the Christian Right to further their propaganda.

When someone is so admit to disprove widely accepted scientific theory there is usually an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with science. .

Tony

Let’s return to our fanatical friends, the Christian Right. They, as a group, have been some of the most vocal opponents of the idea of global warming. It is reasonable to understand, given their very public religious positions, why politically the Evangelicals are bigoted against homosexuals; their perverted “literal” bible interpretations tell them they should be and they are programmed to comply.

Also understandable is their hang up with evolution — carbon dating is wrong, man lived along side dinosaurs, the world is only 325 million years old — it goes against their omnipotent creation in seven days theory that is so much more plausible than, say, poisonous gas trapping the sun’s rays in the atmosphere and heating the earth – but I digress.

The Christian Right’s aversion to global warming is completely baseless from every perspective and angle. No matter how one reads the bible, one will not find any passage that condemns people who believe that destroying a planet –- that in their belief structure God created — is wrong. Also, there is most definitely nowhere in the Ten Commandments a dictate that says “Thou shall not partake in conservationalism.”

Unlike evolution, it is not a threat to the archaic Evangelical interpretations of biblical doctrine to accept that global warming is a threat to humanity. It is even arguable that if you give God credit for the creation of the earth, then he would probably be pretty upset with the idea that the people for whom he created it think that they can carelessly trash his creation like college kids in a frat house.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Tony,

/my snide comments off/ I think that you attribute too much of the opposition to the man made global warming stuff to the “religious right.” I can’t speak for them, being an Agnostic/Atheist, but perhaps since they already have a religion they don’t feel a compelling need to find another. There is, however, a Green Bible in circulation, which may sway some of them.

I agree that environmental improvement is a good idea, regardless of whether MMGW is happening. Please see my “non-satirical postscript” to this article. I cringe, however, whenever I read the expression “I believe” in MMGW. Science should not be a matter of belief; belief in or against what should be a scientifically demonstrable, refutable or at least arguable physical phenomenon is a poor substitute for reasoned discussion. I also cringe when true believers in MMGW suggest criminal prosecution or at least shunning of those who disagree.

“Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming,” Hansen continues. “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Pompous certainty of this sort in an area where there remains and should be lively debate ill serves their cause.

Dan(Miller)

Tony

A good portion of the argument came from the Christian right. They are an easily manipulated voting base that will listen to anything the Republicans spew because they believe Democrats are god-less because they generally support abortion. If you believe a political party supports “murder” you generally disavow anything that party trumpets.

Corporate CEO’s know that their ilk trying to convince the general public themselves that global warming is fake will be unsucessful, so they manipulate the Christian right to spread their message for them.

I’m not talking about trying anyone for crimes or anything like that — I’m just aware that the Industrial Revolution isn’t going to last forever, and we need to update our concepts on how we do business.

My scorn for the Christian right comes from the fact that, again on this issue, they are trying to legislate from a basis that stems from their own religion, which is a huge problem in this country. The Christian Right generally sees science as a threat to their beliefs. Whether it is stem cell research, evolution, or global warming, it is a general aversion to science this is hurting this country and this planet.

Now saying “I believe” in global warming is probably bad semantics, but the problem with belief isn’t the concept itself, its where the belief stems from.

I believe in gravity because science has proved its existence. My “belief” in global warming, or my concurrence (if that suits you better) stems from the same type of source.

People who “believe” in things like religon do so based on ancient texts and dogma whose source and history that typically don’t understand. Belief is dangerous when it stems from questionable sources and is inalterable. The word itself is not negative. There is a big difference between hating gay people because your preacher tells you to and believing global warming is real because NASA and other leading climatologist’s say so. There is also a big difference between the Virgin Marry showing up on a cheese sandwich and the Northwest Passage becoming navigable for the first time in human history.

Lumpy

glenn. i’m not religious and I don’t accept global warming for the same reasons I oppose creationism, because it is based on faith not science. if it were rational it would welcome further researcg not condemn skeptics as if they were heretics.

Tony

Global Warming is not based on faith. It is based on a wealth of science from the most renowned institutions in this country and the world.

Skeptics are not condemned for being “heretics.” They are condemned because the earth is in a large amount of danger and this refusal to accept the moutain of evidence presented in support of this idea, is basically sealing the planet’s fate.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

I cringe, however, whenever I read the expression “I believe” in MMGW.

So do I, Dan, but not, I strongly suspect, for the same reason as you.

It’s a cunning debate-framing tactic by the GW skeptics. By declaring, ‘I don’t believe in global warming’, you set your opponent up for the response, ‘I do believe in global warming’. Whereupon you can accuse your opponent of arguing on faith, not science.

I wish to God the skeptics were right – I really do. Unfortunately, as Tony observes, there is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence to suggest that MMGW is happening and will continue to happen. To what extent the effects will impact our lives remains to be seen, but I have a feeling it ain’t going to be pretty.

And Tony is also correct that the Christian Right is not the prime mover behind the skeptical movement. As so often in recent times, they’ve been exploited as political pawns – a useful mob. (They’re starting to realize this, which could be interesting.)

No, it’s not them. As someone very astute once said, ‘It’s about the money… it’s always about the money.’

Franco

#159 — Tony

“When someone is so admit to disprove widely accepted scientific theory there is usually an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with science”.

The same thing can be said about both sides of the scientific debate and your living proof.

First you false frame your argument to skip over thus deny the existance of credible counter scientific theory. Then you move your attack to Christians and American corporations as both being blindly lead by the right wing corporat power brokers to usher in the death of the planet. That is not a logical argument, that is a comic book script.

It is hard to decipher if this opinion piece and your follow up comments are more about pro-global warming solutions on their own merits, or a cover for an anti-Christian and anti-corporate American bashing rant. Regardless, this kind of false framing exhibits the absences of intellectual honesty, and this leads to question everything else you say.

To support the ex-Al Gore globle warming love in fest, you assert in your opinion piece and again in post #160 that Christians are bigoted against homosexuals, yet ironically your own assertions about Christians are both bigoted and prejudiced in order to make your point, which you then fail to make the moment you do it. I wonder why Al Gore didn’t use this angle.

Contrairy to what you’ve been told, a true Christian can no more condone the act of homosexuality any more then they can condone the act of incest, adultery, or bestiality. The scripture are clear about all sexual sins and it would take a perverted imagintion to believe that they say otherwise. But then again, no one is telling you that you have to believe them.

True Christians are not singling out homosexuals at tagets apart from all the other sexual sins. However some so-called Christians who do not condone homosexual behavior, but then turn around and go and cheat on their wife or husband, or even dwell on and fantasize about cheating, (adultery), are committing a no lessor sexual sin then homosexuals. Those so-called Christians are both bigots and hypocrites.

But to make a blanket statement about Christians as a whole are all bigots, when in fact that is not the case, is in and of it self bigoted and prejudice (one size fits all) thinking.

And your assertion that Christians, or anyone else on any other faith or no faith at all, who questions globle warming is being blindly lead is another false logic fallacy. People are looking at both the evidence for and against and what both in the spot light in making the very best choice we can. Most people are not scientis, including you and this makes them open game for both sides of the fence.

That is the key difference from your opinion piece where you will not even acknowledge that counter scientific evidence has any merit let alone allow it into the arean of full disscusstion/debate. It makes you look like the one with an ulterior motive.

However, I don’t believer that is you have one, s because you are not that rational. Therefor I assert it is you being lead blindly by those on your side of the fence who do.

Something to think about Tony.

They that control how, when and where the worlds rescorces are used, controls the worlds resorces. They that control the worlds resurces contols all of mankind.

What body of people then gets to control all of mankind? Are they then made of a finer clay then you and me?

If its any indication of how this is going to work out in seeing Russina cuting off natural gas to Europe for both selfish political and finacal gain, then there is a lot more to talk about then just the earths tempiture.

http://www.myspace.com/x15 Douglas Mays

Cripes! Christian right, etc. Geez, you death idiots should just jump off a cliff and die now. Get out of the way for those who know reality and might be able to clean up destruction.

Global Warming is just a part of ecological suicide. It may or may not be as big as some say. That don’t matter. It is real. Global Warming is contributing in some way to destruction of earth.

So, I guess the Christian Right is really SATAN in disguise.

Hey everybody! Let us just pray and hope that God (or whoever your false idol is) saves us. hehehehe. Sorry, God has nothing to do with it at this point. Say, in theory, he is looking down on this planet looking at us humans thinking “man, what a bunch of assholes I created. Oh well, let them kill themselves. The Earth account is faulty, I should just close shop and retire”.

Geez, sure I am in a grumpy mood today but that does not change the reality.

murder,
DM

Tony

So my ulterior motive is corporation bashing (if I was rational enough to have one)? That’s funny since I live in Michigan, am a small business owner who depends heavily on the staffing of large businesses, and am a Conservative/Libertarian when it comes to economics. Always have been a supply-sider.

“First you false frame your argument to skip over thus deny the existence of credible counter scientific theory. Then you move your attack to Christians and American corporations as both being blindly lead by the right wing corporate power brokers to usher in the death of the planet. That is not a logical argument, that is a comic book script.”

If you can’t understand that environmental regulations will screw up the bottom line of major corporations than you have no understanding of corporate America. If companies have to dump their waste properly and regulate emissions there will be huge costs involved but that argument isn’t good enough to garner the support of the people, so they turn to the Religious Right, the new never wavering stalwarts of the Republican agenda, to fool the public (the same way they did on Iraq, the economy, ect.

I never said Corporations are polluting to “destroy the earth.” I said they are polluting to SAVE MONEY, which just so happens to also destroy the earth. It is more convenient for these companies if warming is false in the same way it was for convenient for RJ Reynolds if no one ever found cigarettes were bad.

As for your comments on Christianity; the Christian Right (not the whole of Christianity) has been trying to shove their dogma down everyone’s throats for eight years now and their ignorance is destructive. Their views on stem cell research are hurting people who desperately need the research, their views on homosexuality are violating the natural rights of individuals, and their views on global warming are destroying the planet.

I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own churches. I just want their religion kept out of my secular Constitution and my secular country.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

I think much of the Christian Right’s opposition to the notion of man-made global warming has to do with their belief that it’s supposed to be God who destroys the planet, not man.

Faced with evidence that man appears to be doing quite a nifty job of it without any divine intervention whatsoever, you can understand why a certain strain of Christian might feel compelled to deny, deny, deny.

http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

Has anyone noticed that the more someone is against the warnings about global warming, the more likely that person is against the theory of evolution, too?

Really, Glenn? I know from their other postings that many of those who question the doctrine of global warming who are writing here are expressly non-religious and just as opposed to creationism.

Skeptics are not condemned for being “heretics.”

No? What about the climatologists who have lost academic jobs and government jobs for even questioning the doctrine or mentioning the fact that the earth has actually been cooling for the last decade.

What do you think when someone like NASA’s GW guru James Hansen says that oil company “CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

You don’t think that’s just a little fanatical?

Earlier someone claimed that AGW skeptics are not climatologists.

Does that mean that Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT is not qualified to question AGW doctrine?

Does that mean that William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University is a fraud of some sort?

How about John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama? Another non-scientist?

And we certainly wouldn’t want to listen to Tim Patterson, noted paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University who said:

“There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Earlier someone claimed that AGW skeptics are not climatologists.

No, I said most.

The list goes on and on.

Does it? Of the 39 skeptical scientists listed on Wikipedia, only six are atmospheric or climate scientists.

I certainly don’t dismiss them out of hand – as I said, I wish dearly that MMGW was not true – I do wonder why skeptics like yourself hold their opinions of greater weight than those of the very large majority.

But Dr. D., my opinion is only that we should continue to study the issue and consider all the possibilities while not leaping to drastic measures which might do a great deal of harm unnecessarily. That’s a very mild opinion compared to accusing people of crimes against humanity and demanding they get fired from their jobs.

What is very clear on a gross level, is that the amount and rate of global warming in no sense justifies a precipitous reaction or some sort of crisis panic state. The planet has been cooling for almost a decade even if we’re stil up 2 degrees in the long term. Temperatures have been much higher in past eras without disastrous results. Change does not automatically mean disaster.

Dave

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Dave –

I wasn’t speaking only of BC writers. Do you really want to dispute that overall, it’s the conservatives who are against the research indicating MMGW? And do you dispute that conservatives are MUCH more likely than liberals to oppose the theory of evolution?

No, I don’t think you do. My point stands.

Clavos

There is also the point that, with the exception of Kerry Emanuel, most of the hurricane experts do not support the theory that GW is primarily manmade. They include such noted and respected scientists as Bill Gray and Max Mayfield, as well as the staff of the NHC here in Miami.

As an amateur with a special interest in meteorology (and an atheist), I am bemused by the near-religious fervor with which the general scientific community and the especially the public, have embraced the theories of the MMGW advocates as gospel, even though meteorologists freely admit that it is nearly impossible to predict atmospheric conditions more than a few weeks ahead.

The predictions in re MMGW are also based on computer models, which, in turn, depend on the data input to them for their predictive results; data gleaned from barely more than a hundred years of accurate observation of climatological phenomena.

Additional note to the author: No one on this thread is denying the existence of GW. What is being questioned is the degree to which the sources of GW are anthropogenic.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Glen,

Damn. I come to hate the words “conservative” and “liberal” more each day; soon, that may be impossible. And, when the “religious right” is lumped in with and becomes synonymous with “conservative,” the terms become even more useless for conveying rational notions.

The following implied syllogism,

Conservatives are stupid and Liberals are smart;
Conservatives don’t believe in MMGW and Liberals do;
Therefore, MMGW is an indisputable fact

strikes me as inane. I am quite prepared to listen to reasoned argumentation, based on science and economics, till the cows stop farting or until I am reasonably convinced that there is a significant danger that man can ameliorate without doing more harm than good. The high emotional content of the present argument strikes me as “conservative,” in the sense of the major premise of the above syllogism.

Dan(Miller)

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Glen, additional but related points: You say,

it’s the conservatives who are against the research indicating MMGW . . . . And do you dispute that conservatives are MUCH more likely than liberals to oppose the theory of evolution?

I don’t think that the MMGW skeptics oppose research on MMGW; they like to point out flaws in that research, and to counter it with other research which they deem less flawed.

As to evolution, you yourself refer to it as a “theory.” It is a theory. It strikes me as far more likely to be accurate than creationism or any other offering on the subject. But it remains a theory, something to be considered but not “believed in.”

The theories which support MMGW strike me, thus far, as rather lower on the scale of acceptability than those supporting evolution; the theories which suggest that MMGW is hysterically overblown strike me as far more acceptable than the theory of creationism.

Dan(Miller)

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

Doc says there are 39 scientists listed in Wikipedia that are agaisnt GW…I guess that’s why I’ve always been told to ignore most of what you read on wiki…

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Dan – I tried that theory argument on the evolution junkies too…they’re sure it’s only called a theory because that’s all it can be until man can travel back in time and prove it without a doubt. You know, the argument is, they’re all theories! Relativity, gravity, all of it, nothing but theories. As long as there’s no magic or divine intervention involved, the theory has to be true! And as we all know, gravity has already been disproved, people don’t stay on the Earth because of gravity, they stay because the Earth sucks!

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Dan –

On the syllogism, I did not say ‘all’ of anything or anyone. I referred to likelihoods. Please see the difference.

And nowhere in my writings will you ever see me say that conservatives are ‘stupid’…and if I ever did, then the only stupid one is me.

YES, there are many conservatives who know that global warming is real and that mankind is aggravating its increase. YES, there are many conservatives who know that evolution is a fact. YES, there are probably some liberals who don’t think global warming and/or evolution is real.

BUT we’re talking about LIKELIHOODS. Do you really want to hold the position that PERCENTAGE-wise, there is NO difference between the segments of conservatives and liberals who disavow global warming and/or evolution?

Dan, this is really more about DOGMA – it’s not really that much different than asking which group is more likely to believe in tax cuts for the wealthy or Universal Health Care.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Glen, I did not say ‘all’ of anything or anyone. Neither did I; I used no quantitative modifier, such as all, most, many, more, etc. in front of either “conservative” or “liberal.” Dan, this is really more about DOGMA . . . . Now there we agree, and I submit that dogma is about equally relied upon by left and right. Dogma should have no place in the debate over MMGW or, for that matter, anything other than religious belief. The problem I keep raising is that it is widely relied upon in what should be non-religious contexts.

Dan(Miller)

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Dan –

Personally, I wish we could keep religion out of the entire political discussion too – but that’s not going to happen. I think America might be the first country that was founded on separation of church and state, but for the life of me I can’t think of any major religion anywhere on the planet that hasn’t tried to involve itself in politics…and so long as religion is influential in politics, then matters of religion are not completely inappropriate in political discussions.

To further illustrate the point, which group strongly supported mandating the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ alongside evolution in schools? I think you must agree that liberals were almost without exception strongly opposed to the idea – including me, even though I am very strongly Christian.

I realize that my statement about likelihoods of who is against MMGW research and evolution is offensive and that syllogisms are in many cases errors in logic – after all, set theory is not always compatible with human nature. However, I nonetheless believe my observation to be true…and indicative of a small but significant difference in the general mindsets of conservatives and liberals, that difference being that one side is more likely (but ONLY very slightly so) to expect that facts must fit their beliefs, rather than molding their beliefs to fit the facts at hand.

That statement, too, should be offensive to many – but my intent is not to post what is acceptable, but what is factual (though I admit I often fail).

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Glen, I haven’t found anything you have written to be “offensive;” sometimes inconsistent with my views, but I like that. There would be very little fun in discussing things without disagreement.

You say, Personally, I wish we could keep religion out of the entire political discussion too . . . . I’ve been struggling with an article on just that topic for about a week. My initial premise is that “religion” has a big impact on our social views of good and evil, and therefore on politics, and that that is not necessarily a bad thing. My focus, of necessity, is upon Christianity because that is the religion with which I am most familiar. My hangup has been in devising what I consider to be a suitable, and therefore neither excessively inclusive nor exclusive, definition of religion. Perhaps I need some sort of divine guidance on the matter. Alas, She is unlikely to come to my aid.

My initial intent is to acknowledge, but thereafter sever from the discussion, dogmatic, doctrinal aspects such as the Trinity, Virgin Birth, etc. which — while defining elements of Christianity — have little impact as far as I know on political matters. Views? I haven’t come up with much yet, but am working on it.

Dan(Miller)

Clavos

a small but significant difference in the general mindsets of conservatives and liberals, that difference being that one side is more likely (but ONLY very slightly so) to expect that facts must fit their beliefs, rather than molding their beliefs to fit the facts at hand.

Herein lies the problem. The “facts” presented by MMGW advocates are what most questioners dispute. Much of the evidence for MMGW comes from the computer models I mentioned above. Such models depend on the quality of the data (and the interpretation thereof) input to the program for the program to model a prediction. It is a fact that accurate observation of climate data has taken place for only a little more than a hundred years, which is the proverbial blink of an eye in historical terms.

In addition, some of the models have already been shown to be flawed (e.g. the infamous “Hockey Puck.”).

As Dan(Miller) says above, there is enough doubt in the theory that anthropogenesis plays a significant role in the fact of global warming, that there is a real danger in accepting that we can ameliorate such damage without causing further harm to other elements of our society, relative to the supposed benefit to be gained thereby.

I’ll never understand why people fight so hard to disprove this concept. Why fight so vigorously to protect the short term balance sheets of corporate America? If you haven’t noticed,the economy is already a disaster, even while we continue to consume non-renewable resources and pump the byproducts into the atmosphere.

Getting past the short term, transitional economic effects on certain industries what scares you people so much about going green?

– The new, American based, industries that would spring up in every facet of green energy?
– Not being the prostitutes of our Arab pimps anymore?
– This country returning to the days when we actually EXPORTED products?
– Cleaner air and water? Have you seen the mercury levels in fish these days?

Why work so hard to disprove global warming so we can continue being pimped out by OPEC, continue hurting our environment (even if you don’t believe in global warming you can’t honestly believe that pumping chemicals into the environment does nothing — do you not believe in acid rain either?), and continue our reliance on foreign entities for our energy.

Accepting that global warming is happening does not mean submitting to some fascist agenda. We can use the free market and private business to push this forward, even using tax incentives to encourage companies to comply on the highest levels. A wider vision of this issue is not going to be achieved until we stop examining this from a political standpoint and instead realize that this is an environmental and economic issue.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Clavos @ #174:

You surely must be aware that meteorology and climatology are two distinct sciences.

Being a weather expert does not make one a climate expert, just as being a biologist does not make one a paleontologist.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

And Clavos @ #183:

‘Hockey Puck‘? I always thought it was a hockey stick.

No wonder you’ve got your facts skewed…

😉

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Finally, for the record, I can align with Dave here inasmuch as while I think human activity is having a significant effect on climate, I doubt the effects – while not exactly being fun – will be quite as severe as some are predicting.

42 years here has taught me that while Planet Earth is considerably more interesting and exciting than Christian fundamentalists would have you believe, it’s significantly more boring than the world depicted by Hollywood disaster movie directors.

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Clavos –

It is a fact that accurate observation of climate data has taken place for only a little more than a hundred years, which is the proverbial blink of an eye in historical terms.

Um, no, that’s NOT a fact.

We have tens of thousands of years of accurate climate data from glacier and ice sheet samples, and millions of years of accurate climate data from fossils and geological samples.

It’s really not that hard to understand, Clavos. When you take a sample, you determine how old that sample is and then extrapolate the climate data from the chemical makeup in the sample. This has been done tens of thousands of times from sites in every corner of the world…and we know the data is accurate because of the ongoing consistency of the results. By using these, we have been able to determine the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, from which we can ascertain the global range of temperatures.

But these facts will mean nothing to you if you are determined to ignore them.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Tony, there are many reasons why the MMGW hysteria is chilling. This article suggests several. This article suggests that scare tactics of the sort employed by St. Al the Gored et al don’t wash when the water is frozen.

Dan(Miller)

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Dan –
From the second article:

And your humble correspondent would like to point out just how ridiculous film producers trying to promote a PC global warming message can be made to appear in the face of Mother Nature, which is why the they seem to be embarrassed to release The Thaw in the midst of record-low temperatures.

Hm. That reminds me of the strong conservatives I know at Church, who are certain that global warming’s a myth because of the near-record snowfall we had a few weeks back.

Problem is, they – and the writer of the article you referenced – do not seem to realize that North America is NOT the whole world.

To wit: According to the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, “The year 2008 is likely to rank as the tenth warmest year on record since the beginning of the instrumental climate records in 1850, although the global average temperature was slightly lower than previous years of the 21st century, according to the United Nations meteorological agency.”

But I like to save the best for last. I looked at the first article, the one by ‘Robert L. Bradley’, founder of the Institute for Energy Research. He’s got some great credentials, too – highly educated, published…and then I noticed he’s based out of Houston. So I did some digging…and guess what his former job was? Director of Public Policy Analysis at Enron and speechwriter for Ken Lay.

So who’s right – the film critic and the scion of Enron? Or the U.N. World Meteorological Organization?

Next time, Dan, please consider your sources.

Clavos

You surely must be aware that meteorology and climatology are two distinct sciences.

I am, indeed. Surely you must be aware that the two, in addition to being distinct, are also closely related.

‘Hockey Puck’? I always thought it was a hockey stick.

Again, true. The error is a reflection of my utter and complete lack of interest in sports. Let me see: one hits the stick with the puck in order to score a home run, right?

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Not quite, Clav. As Michael Phelps, a leading exponent of pony-and-trap racing, would tell you, the puck is only used when the middleweight quarterback is offside. And the home run is in the completely different sport of orienteering, in which two teams of thirteen players attempt to score free throws by striking the cue ball with Al Gore. (Games can last for a considerable amount of time, as the players have to locate and catch Mr Gore first before any scoring can occur.)

Clavos

When you take a sample, you determine how old that sample is and then extrapolate the climate data from the chemical makeup in the sample. This has been done tens of thousands of times from sites in every corner of the world…and we know the data is accurate because of the ongoing consistency of the results. By using these, we have been able to determine the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, from which we can ascertain the global range of temperatures.

Thank you. The key word in your lecture above is extrapolated, which you may (or may not) know, means to “project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area.”

You are quite correct about the amount of data which has been collected from ice core samples, tree rings, etc. The interesting aspect of that data is that it proves the world has been undergoing warming and cooling periods for eons, without interference or help from the activities of mankind. In fact, much of that data reveals such fluctuations occurred even prior to the existence of hominids.

However, the fact remains that the data used in the computer models is subject to the selection process and interpretation of the individual programming the data, and as such, can and does result in wildly divergent results, some of which are now being questioned by capable and respected peers.

Clavos

The year 2008 is likely to rank as the tenth warmest year on record since the beginning of the instrumental climate records in 1850

Tenth warmest. Out of 158. Now there’s something to keep you awake at night.

And from the UN, no less.

Talk about “sources.”

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

The interesting aspect of that data is that it proves the world has been undergoing warming and cooling periods for eons, without interference or help from the activities of mankind. In fact, much of that data reveals such fluctuations occurred even prior to the existence of hominids.

That’s all very well, Clav, but established climate theory links these fluctuations to the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 levels have risen 35% since the beginning of the industrial age, and the majority of this rise can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. So if it’s not that which is causing the atmosphere to warm, what is?

pablo

Global Warming caused by human beings is a scam created by The Club of Rome back in 1972, in the book that this globalist group put out “The Limits to Growth”.

Here is the quote from the book:

“The common enemy of humanity is man.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

It is simply a new boogeyman to alarm folks everwhere that we need a global government, and creating the scenerios that will make this happen.

Indeed the Club of Rome is aligned with the CFR, and the Rothschilds, with particular reference to one Maurice Strong one of the most influential people in the world, that very few people have heard of that works for the Rothschild dynasty.

Unfortunately most liberals are not familiar with Chicken Little, and their naivete is only outdone by their arrogance. Some people will believe ANYTHING, particularly that the sky is falling, cuz we humans are so bad.

In fact to me the ONLY redeeming quality about any liberals (I was brought up one) is that they have a heart, aside from that they have no idea that they have been co-opted for decades.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Tell me, Pablo, does anything happen on this planet of yours that isn’t designed and directed by the dastardly CFR and its cohorts?

Geez, now I am reading in comments about all this ‘creation vs. evolution’ crap.

I am seeing a society fuck up their stupid minds and fucking up society with such a goddamn idiotic question that does not even need to be answered.

Why? We are here now! And we pretty much know how the machine of the planet works. so people are throwing in this gaddamn idiotic question of evolution vs. creation.

I have never understood the purpose of that. Anyone worried about that can just go piss their pants.

The answer is 42. OK? Good enuf.

Can anyone tell me why the evolution vs. creation thing just gets in the way and has become some ‘end all’ in the way we operate this planet earth.

Remember, God has nothing to do with it. If anyone can give me a fucking answer on what that question has to do with anything at all, that would be interesting.

Funny how the concept of my outlook (#167) is dodged. Everyone goes right back to God. Fucking hell!!! Is Sarah Palin leaving comments? Might as well be…

lemmings to the atomic sea,
DM

Cindy D

Douglas,

You’ve never seen Inherit the Wind I guess.

The answer is 42. OK?

I’m okay with that.

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Hey, look what NEVER EXISTED! We KNOW these NEVER existed because pablo found somebody who IMPLIED such didn’t exist until “they came up with it”.

“…we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

So there’s NO threat of global warming!
and NO threat of pollution!
NO water shortages!
NO famine!

(note to pablo – in your list of conspirators, you forgot the illuminati, SMERSH, Davos, the Rotarians, and the New York Yankees)

Clavos

Doc,

The theory linking CO2 levels in the atmosphere to global warming also shows that there have been CO2-related increases in the temperature thousands of years before the Industrial Age, so the assumption that the rise in CO2 levels since then is tied to the increase in industrial activity is questionable.

Also, the same theory (linking CO2 and GW) notes that the increase in GW generally lags behind the increase in CO2 levels by 1200-1500 years, which would indicate that what (if anything) we are experiencing now is not related to, nor an effect of, the Industrial Age.

Franco

Tony sez…..

“I’ll never understand why people fight so hard to disprove this concept.”

You are one of the poster boys for why we do.

Your claiming that you will never understand, well that is a long time Tony, but for now we know you don’t, and if I may add, there is no deed nor is there any dignity in you rubbing your own noses in it.

“Why fight so vigorously to protect the short term balance sheets of corporate America?”

There are thousands of reasons as American businesses are already the most heavily environmentally regulated and heavily taxed businesses in the world, and to the point, there is nothing-short term about the massive costs about Kyoto on American business as it is a transformation over to a commnad centered ecconomy, if it could even servive long enough in getting to the point.

“Accepting that global warming is happening does not mean submitting to some fascist agenda.”

Andrei Illarionov, the senior economic adviser to President Vladimir Putin who opposed Russia’s ratification of Kyoto, sees it as a recrudescence of the communist command economy.

Tony, kindly direct your argument to the senior economic adviser to President Vladimir Putin of Russia who told the BBC.

“Ideology, on which the Kyoto Protocol is based, is a new form of totalitarian ideology, along with Marxism, Communism and socialism.” Kyoto is Totalitarianism

“the Christian Right has been trying to shove their dogma down everyone’s throats for eight years now and their ignorance is destructive.”

As Clavos so intuitively points out the religious fervor with which the general scientific community and the especially the public have embraced the theories of the MMGW advocates as gospel”.

Religion – belief, creed, sect, doctrine.

Tony qualifise as a faith-based religion of MMGW.

So then Tony asserts: “I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own churches. I just want their religion kept out of my secular Constitution and my secular country.”

Excusse me, “your” Constitution?

Government policy should not be driven by the religion of alarmist scenarios about the world in 2100 that make long-range weather forecasting look rock solid by comparison,

Inherit the Wind. I’ll look into it. If it adds some information regarding how ‘creation vs. evolution’ has anything to do with anything in the operation of our planet, that is good information to process.

Yeah, aren’t I a blowhard grump? But, sometimes you gotta be… It pisses people off to a point where you get some sort of semi-thought out emotional reaction.

42, that makes sense…

DM

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Clav,

I won’t press the issue too much. As I’ve indicated, I really hope you’re right, although I doubt that you are. The point is that the recent rate of increase in global temperatures is what one would expect given the drastic rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century or two. Again, if it’s not from our emissions, where is it from?

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Incredible. Absolutely freaking incredible.

The great majority of the world’s scientists know that MMGW is a fact – they see the hard evidence right before their eyes and in their hands.

But MMGW deniers say all these scientists are wrong. MMGW is ‘faith-based science’, they say – as if the plethora of hard evidence was all a conspiracy, a chimera.

BUT HERE’S THE CRUX OF THE MATTER. If we strive to stop global warming and it turns out to be false, what’s the harm? Some economic hardship and that’s about it.

But if we do NOTHING as the deniers demand and global warming turns out to be true, we face global catastrophe.

Truly, which is the greater risk?

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Franco @ #203:

There are thousands of reasons as American businesses are already the most heavily environmentally regulated and heavily taxed businesses in the world, and to the point, there is nothing-short term about the massive costs about Kyoto on American business as it is a transformation over to a commnad centered ecconomy…

Seems I wasn’t too far off the mark, then, back in #165. It is all about the money.

Clavos

It would be good to remember that “The great majority of the world’s scientists” all were against the ideas of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, among many others.

Science is not a consensus discipline.

http://www.myspace.com/x15 Douglas Mays

Look, global warmin exists to some degree. How much? Fight it out while the planet dies. It is to the point of “gee, how many chicken pox do you have?” It is all part ecological destruction. Fact.

It cannot be denied that it does exist. To what level is the real debate. Better deal with it no matter what. the longer you let it go the more money it will cost. Then it gets to the point where there is no amount of money to do anything about it. So what happens is that the global destruction gets to a point where the normal function of society does not work that way anymore due to desperate survival. The concept of making money goes away. Things will just deteriorate to a predator vs. prey existance on earth.

Planet Earth? A Donner Party orgy….

That is a fact.

How much money can you make when you are dying?

It is a lose-lose situation.

wimps,
DM

Tony

#203 – The one thing I do understand is the narrow mindedness of people like you. I could care less what Putin’s economic advisor thinks about Kyoto. Maybe if you could expand your thought process a little, and gain some business sense you could figure out how we can profit from green energy. I’ll try to simplify for you.

– Right now energy comes from —– OPEC
– If we produce our own energy it comes from — Us

Is that easy enough to understand? Can you, run through the economic advantages for a country that produces ITS OWN ENERGY. How many oil wars to we need to fight before this becomes evident. We would have saved ourselves a few billion in Iraq.

And yes, it is MY Constitution and MY country. As an American citizen (who pays far too many taxes) that lives under a Constitution put in place to construct the guidelines of a government for and by the people (all people, that means the Jews, Arabs, Indians and all other non-Christian American citizen that pay taxes), I, and every American citizen has an ownership stake in Constitution and Government.

That’s why its a problem for one group’s narrow ideology to try to high jack policy. That is exactly what the Constitution was created to prevent – mob rule.

But I don’t have the energy or the will to argue with people whose minds are so perverted that they believe taking care of our planet is an affront for a new world global order to sweep in and control our lives. That’s like trying to explain to someone that we really did land on the moon, utterly pointless.

*whoever it was that hasn’t seen Inherit the Wind, please rent it. Great movie and it shows how long people who value science and knowledge have been dealing with those who will suppress it for their own gain.

In closing, I guess I really do understand the skeptics: like they said in All the Presidents Men, “follow the money.”

Franco

#171 — Dr Dreadful

“Of the 39 skeptical scientists listed on Wikipedia, only six are atmospheric or climate scientists.”

Doc, that is interesting and I am actually surprised that there are six in the mix. At least their are six in there and this makes for better science when all the related disciplines are working together on such a complex issue as MMGW.

In contrast to that…..

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

IPCC then set up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) which entered into force in March 1994. Then both the IPCC/FCCC set up the Kyoto protocol.

IPCC is at the head of it all, so who are the scientists of the IPCC?

Of the 2500 IPCC authors on Climate Change, less then half, 1100 are scientists, and of those, only 40 peer-review each others’ grants and publications and they are all in the one scientific discipline — that is atmospheric physics.

Professionals from other scientific disciplines that can contribute enormously to climate change, such as geologists who look back at previous climates, are not part of, or do they get a look in at the (IPCC).

The IPCC is a club of atmospheric physicists who have failed to consider other evidence that might contradict the theory of human-caused global warming.

It is both strange and preposterous that the IPCC or anyone would assert that geologists have nothing to contribute to the understanding of climate change.

Geologists, as scientists, operate in deep time. They study environmental phenomena on scales commensurate with the earth’s dynamic and changing nature, over periods of hundreds to thousands to millions of years and more.

It questions like this, and many others that should be addressed rather then the radical predictions of the IPCC and thier rush rush marketing in ushering in Kyoto protocol via KMMGW. There already starting to teach these radical horrors to children in schools. Who or what gave them authority to do that?

Now I am not a conspiracy case and it appears neither are you. But do you know anything about UN Agenda 21?

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Franco,

1. Your objections to the IPCC would have more weight if it was the only body taking a position supportive of the theory of MMGW. It isn’t, by any means.

2. Agreed, geology can tell us much about the climatological history of the Earth. But its use is very limited as far as helping us understand the impact of Industrial Man on climate is concerned, because it takes much longer than 200 years for most geological structures to form.

3. No, I’m not a conspiracist. Agenda 21 appears to be simply a blueprint on sustainable development. It is not a treaty, nor does it appear to be binding on any of the UN member nations, whose participation is voluntary. In that respect it’s no more sinister than Unicef.

The site you linked to appears to be a forum for some of those folks who think anything the UN does is some dastardly scheme to usurp national sovereignty. Even Ban Ki-Moon blowing his nose in his office is likely to be taken by these people as a UN plot to unleash biological warfare on the US.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

I second (or is it third or fourth or fifth by this time?) the recommendation of Inherit the Wind. Even if you disagree with the film’s ideology, it’s worth watching for the superb performances of Fredric March and of course Spencer Tracy, one of the finest actors ever to grace the silver screen.

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Tony –

You bring up an interesting point – how far could we have gotten on building an alternative energy infrastructure – solar, wind, geothermal (AND nuclear IMO) – if we had not spent ten billion dollars per MONTH in Iraq?

Actually, we wouldn’t have gotten any further than we are now, because Bush and company doesn’t believe in anything that might take a few pennies away from the oil companies.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Actually, Glenn, I think the oil companies appreciate the finite nature of their product far better than Bush or any politician. They do, after all, have to look to their own interests beyond a two, four or six-year term of office.

As anyone will know who’s seen BP’s television commercials, oil companies are very active in investigating alternative and/or renewable energy sources. It’s where their future business will come from. Those TV spots aren’t just about polishing their corporate haloes…

Clavos

If america quit buying ALL oil tomorrow, the oil companies would not lose more than a fiscal quarter’s worth of revenue before they ramped up their sales to such places as China and India (which are exempted from the restrictions sought by Kyoto and other conservation schemes) by lowering their prices to entice them.

It has very little to do with the oil companies, which are rapidly evolving into energy providers, and will still be selling us and the rest of the world all our energy, even when none of it is obtained by burning fossil fuels.

As others experiment and launch alternative energy sources, the oil companies will simply observe, identify those that are truly viable, and buy them.

In the meantime, they, too, are investing heavily in R&D on alternatives; they know they can sell the world its energy for decades to come as long as they remain the owners of the sources of energy.

Stupid they are not.

Franco

#207 — Dr Dreadful

“Seems I wasn’t too far off the mark, then, back in #165. It is all about the money”.

Doc, no you weren’t, you were right on. Here is your exact comment from #165 as it is worth repeating.

“As someone very astute once said, ‘It’s about the money… it’s always about the money.’

So how many billions in taxpayer dollars are we up now from paying scientfic MMGW ranters and there faith-based religioius faithful followers to rant?

There’s gold in them their MMGW NGO ativist hills, and a man made religion of faith-based followers to boot.

I do not care much for the heavy hand of Russian and Chinese politics, but I can understand why they do not put up with much from enviornmental NGO’s.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Franco, you’re cherry-picking. There certainly are a few ranters like Hansen, but much genuine, hard and valid work goes into MMGW theory. I’m sure the same is true of the few skeptics.

You weren’t making your case on science, but on economics, which is what prompted my remark.

Tony

Exactly Glenn. Think about the irony. These people call themselves “Republicans” and yet they are more than willing to hand over production of the planets most valuable commodity (energy) to a group of countries comprised of many of the nations that they themselves have called our enemies.

Alternative energy — even if you don’t think it will save the planet — will allow the United States to jump into the production end of the energy game in a huge way.

Think about it. OPEC Countries have so much power only because they happen to sit atop the resource the entire world is clamoring for. If we could find an alternative resource that could be sold as a commodity, it could mean huge money for Amereican companies, both on the production and the manufactoring (equipment, ect) side.

Sure it wouldn’t cripple OPEC overnight but if the United State were to pave the way on the production of an alternative resource that would allow countries a cleaner, more efficent, and likely cheaper, alternative to oil, absolving them of having to deal with OPEC, and giving them the possibility of energy independence themselves, in time, many would follow our lead. And they would be dealing out contracts to the private American companies that developed the technological capabilities to show them how to set up the infrastructure to achieve that independence.

This would greatly diminish the influence, wealth, and conflict in the Middle East without question.

There was a time when the Republican Party represented the business class of America and would have exploited the “green push” for their own economic advantages. Environmental improvements would be an added bonus for those who care. The modern Republican though, blindly follows a platform that has been hijacked by oil men who represent the philosophies of neither Goldwater or Rockefeller, proving they’ve lost their economic sense, hence our current macro situation.

We can come to a consensus here. One side only cares about money and the other wants to save the planet. Well, with an alternative resource produced at home and possibly even exported, we can do both. Hence my point; even if you prove the world is flat you’ve given us no great advantage. We just stay the way we are, the prostitutes to the countries who happen to have been created on oil (if God really loved the U.S.A. wouldn’t he have put US on top of more of the oil???…..I sarcastically digress).

All of you people who argue about the economic disasters of shifting to green energy and have this odd view that the only way to do this is to submit to some U.N. new world order just aren’t thinking like a capitalist. There is no reason that the United States government cannot find ways to stimulate private growth and research in this sector. We just gave billions to financial institutions. Giving a booster to a totally new industry in this country is the best economic stimulus package possible from a capitalist standpoint.

If you really think that environmental regulations are the one restraint stopping us from being competitive on the world stage you’re sadly mistaken. In fact, it is the total lack of environmental regulations in 3rd world nations that makes them so desirable for American companies’ outsourcing efforts but American can never stoop to the labor conditions and total lack of corporate restrictions (including in many cases near total tax freedom) of these countries therefore until these third world nations in Asia and Africa raise their standards to that of the United States, and other industrialized nations, outsourcing will continue to be a problem in a capitalist system.

An energy source produced in this country is an entire industry where these factors do not apply. Energy, health care, service; these are the economies of the future. The countries that control the world’s energy will control the direction of the planet in the 21 century. We are setting ourselves up to become a second rate nation economically. If the latest conditions haven’t tipped everyone off to that I don’t know what will.

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Doc –

I think the oil companies appreciate the finite nature of their product far better than Bush or any politician.

At least one would hope so. Problem is, if that were truly the case then shouldn’t Big Oil be using its considerable power and influence to encourage Congress to raise CAFE standards? Shouldn’t they be pounding on every end user of oil to conserve so that they themselves could have a commodity to sell for several more decades?

As I recall, it’s only T. Boone Pickens who has actually backed up his rhetoric with more than a few spare shillings.

Tony

*last paragraph — industries of the futire — not economies.

Clavos

The oil companies have no interest in CAFE standards, they want to sell as much oil as possible while it lasts, and then sell us the alternative energy when it’s gone.

Pickens, like the oilcos, is looking to make some bucks for himself, not save either the country or the world.

He’s a hardnosed businessman, not an altruist.

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

I posted this in comment 177, but no one seemed to pay any attention to it…you GW apostles who say that all the scientists are in concurrence are dead wrong…read turkeys!

Doc says there are 39 scientists listed in Wikipedia that are agaisnt GW…I guess that’s why I’ve always been told to ignore most of what you read on wiki…

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Some of you people really want to believe the weather man, that’s nice…most of them can’t accurately tell you what the weather is gonna be like this afternoon, but you’re all convinced that they know what’s gonna happen ten years down the road!?

Please! I bet if the current president, not the one who’ll be in ofice next week really believed in MMGW, you assholes would all scream that it was a load of garbage. Just remember, your hero Bill Clinton wouldn’t sign off on Kyoto either.

Cindy D

Anyone can sign that petition. They should stop saying scientists:

This is from either one of their own sites or one of their supporter’s. They’re trying to say that since 1997 there couldn’t possibly be more than a handful of phony signatures.

But really, whether they are phony or not, Michael J. Fix, and one of the Spice girls are not scientists.

I think I’ll probably just go with the opposite of whatever you think Andy.

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

I don’t blame you Cindy, I usually do the same! Go against what I’m thinking, I mean!

Cindy D

lol! At least you have a sense of humor Andy.

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

Andy, what’s not in doubt is that the planet is getting warmer and that there are going to be significant changes and risks involved in that. Higher sea levels and more powerful and frequent hurricanes just for starters.

As to the thing you have in italics, two bits of it seem a bit vague, what is meant by the “foreseeable future” – next week, next year? and “catastrophic” – what do they mean by that? On that basis, I couldn’t go along with the petition. It doesn’t seem relevant that it has been signed by 31,000 scientists unless they were climatologists.

Similarly, the statement about possible benefits to plant and animal environments is pretty vague so it is hard to see exactly what they mean by that.

I also notice that the petition is against the Kyoto agreement, rather than saying that the planet is not warming up and I am a bit concerned about the assertion that “the proposed limits would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damage the health and welfare of of mankind”, which seems to be both unproven and very vague.

In broader terms, the effects of everything we humans are doing on the planet is certainly having an effect on our one and only world and it can’t be a bad thing to assess and review where those cumulative actions are taking us.

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

Oh, your point about the weather is also not relevant, Meteorology and Climatology are very different disciplines.

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

Cindy – I’m married and have two daughters, 23 and 19 years old, a sense of humor is required just to live!

And Chris, so, a meteorologist can’t predict the weather this afternoon and a climatologist can’t figure out what the weather was last week or will be in a year. They’re both just guessing. I understand wanting to put all your stock in the words of folks that are supposed to be in the know, but it seems to me that they’re just not in the know. I can’t believe that no one remembers these same scientists screaming about global cooling 20 to 30 years ago. Now we’re warming?! Nobody knows what the hell is going on!

How ’bout this…we cut out all nationalized health care around the world…any aid or anything like that…the population of the world might just drop to a workable number then the rest of us will be fine…

yeah yeah…chill out! I know some of the morons that read these comments might actually think I’m serious!

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

Andy, I remember reading an article some time ago that basically said that the planet’s natural ability to absorb crap meant we could litter and pollute the planet as much as we like – with a global population of 20 million.

Doubtless Ruvy will be along in a minute to tell us how those 20 million should be his God’s chosen people and that everything going on in the world right now is that God’s plan for making that happen.

As to the other stuff, it’s not guessing, it’s just making sense of things to the best of our abilities at the time. Our understanding grows over time, which is why yesterday’s truth is today’s wrong answer.

Would you prefer if we just didn’t bother figuring stuff out and went to live in caves again? Hunting will be an in demand skill when there are just 20 million of us! 😉

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

Hey, I don’t mind hunting….might enjoy fishing a little more though.

There’s no doubt that oil is a dwindling resource and the world needs to get away from it. Thirty years ago when I visited Dammam, Saudi Arabia and took a tour of the Oil and Petroleum Institute there, they told us they figured only a little more than fifty years of oil lay beneath them.

But the other thing I remember even more than that was the beautifly, is that a word?, scaled out map of the middle east…it showed all the mountains and borders…really cool, like in a James Bond movie, all except for this one spot on the corner of the Med and the Red Sea…nothing but a spot painted black on the map…anyway…

Trying to scare people into believing we’re killing our planet based on something that, whether you want to fess up to it or not, many legitimate scientists believe to be a bunch of flawed theories, is just wrong.

Yeah, going green is a good thing. I honestly believe that. It’s only a matter of time until we have no choice anyway. It could even help stimulate this half dead world economy…it’ll take money out of the hands of terrorists and turn the middle east into a bigger dust bowl than it already is even with all that money.

It’d be really cool to one day run a car off tap water. I’ve always wondered why just breaking down water wasn’t the way to power an engine. I remember doing it in HS. Filling a test tube with hydrogen just using a lantern battery!

Nuclear power, the US Navy’s been doing it for a long time.

But I’m all about that survival of the fittest theory too…I could live off the land if it came down to it. Not that I don’t like my central heating and cooling too!

So really what I’m saying is that there are really better ways to convince me to go green…no need to blow smoke up my ass!

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

According to an article in Pravda, the world is about to enter an ice age. The article seems well thought out, and suggests at the least that there is not total unanimity in the scientific community as to MMGW.

However, we might be too preoccupied with the catastrophes caused by NASA predicted extreme solar activity expected around 2012, causing months of problems for the electric grid, communications, and just about everything else on which modern “civilization” depends. Oh well.

Dan(Miller)

Clavos

…and more powerful and frequent hurricanes just for starters.

Every hurricane expert except Kerry Emanuel (who is a theoretical, as opposed to practical, hurricane specialist) disagrees with that.

Franco

#212 — Dr Dreadful

“Your objections to the IPCC would have more weight if it was the only body taking a position supportive of the theory of MMGW. It isn’t, by any means.”

Doc, good point, although I never suggested it was the only body. The points were clearly (1) that the IPCC is the parent of MMGW/Kyoto, and (2) that their exclusionary practice of the other relative scientific disciplines was the objection/concern. But thank you for acknowledging at least point (2) carries some weight concerning at least the IPCC.

However point (1) as not been given adequate attention, in that the IPCC is the lead dog directly involved and responsible for implementing Kyoto treaty/mandates on all UN member states – “the world”.

Now that you have made mention of these other supporting bodies of MMGW/Kyoto theory outside the IPCC, it would be interesting to know how many of them also limit their science disciplines as the IPCC dose. If that were the case it surly would carry more weight as you point out.

However that is actually less important in knowing then it is to realize that even if many of them did include the other related sciences, the fact remains, how then are these other disciplines going to be properly analyzed by Kyoto’s lead dog and thier 40-member (one discipline) review board at IPCC.

This concern is being over shadowed not only with dismissive comments from members of the public and unrelated academics, but also by the MMGW/Kyoto faithful out side the IPCC. However, as a whole, they share in the proclamation of MMGW/Kyoto end time’s prophecies that require immediate implementation of mandates or MMGW will be unreversible and we are all doomed.

This aggressive assertion in pushing aside anything that disagrees with the immediate Kyoto implementation has been and is being made by non-scientific persons, the general public and even the Hollywood screen actors guild, and riveted in blog opinion pieces as evidenced here.

This urgency is curiously strange when everything is based on a theory this is vague at best.

The IPCC and their MMGW/Kyoto body faithful have pressured the world to sign on the dotted line now or it may be too late. It is like being subjected to a high-pressure salesman who is selling bomb shelters and survival goods who must keep pushing down your questions and inquiries over its high cost and real necessity as unimportant details in light of the overwhelm benefits of the product should you need them. I believe both our earth and the people on it deserve far better salesmanship then that.

Franco

#212 — Dr Dreadful

“Agenda 21 appears to be simply a blueprint on sustainable development. It is not a treaty, nor does it appear to be binding on any of the UN member nations, whose participation is voluntary. In that respect it’s no more sinister than Unicef.

The site you linked to appears to be a forum for some of those folks who think anything the UN does is some dastardly scheme to usurp national sovereignty.”

Doc, what things appear to be, and what they are, often times are not the same thing.

Your admittedly shallow assessment of Agenda 21 makes you sound more like a UN public spokesman for it.

Agenda 21 stands for the agenda of the 21st century. There are literally hundreds of interlocking goals under Agenda 21. Yet there is no one UN information site that explanes it all. Agenda 21 is intended to function as a whole after being enacted piecemeal.

Most people do not know anything about it either, yet it is changing the way the world works and thinks to fit the agenda.

I will admit it is not easily understood as it takes weeks and months of research to begin to even grasp the depth of its root structure already in the works.

There are key cornerstone goals to Agenda 21 the UN must implement. Kyoto is just one of them. The International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established in 2002. The push for a UN World Tax, UN Internet Control (wanting control of the last “MSM free” puplic means of mass information and communition).

Many goals are grouped and given their own names, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) often time refured to as “Guided by the UN Core Strategy” But these all fall under Agenda 21.

There is no way I can send you to one site that explanes it all. You have to do your own research work and it takes well over a hundred hours to start to see its breath.

If you are interested in knowing you can start by Googling “Agenada 21+any word you want”

The site you linked to appears to be a forum for some of those folks who think anything the UN does is some dastardly scheme to usurp national sovereignty.

This is a reckless comment as the UN is the greatest threat to national sovereignty in the world today. While you may not take it that seriously for the UK, or even care if the UK keeps it, we here in the USA do, and far more passionately then your surprise at our intense passion for collage sports.

“Tyranny is always better organized than freedom.”

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Franco, without the more in-depth analysis you suggest, all I can do is comment on what appears to be the case after a cursory look.

I took your suggestion and Googled a few terms in conjunction with ‘Agenda 21′ (including, for a giggle, Agenda 21+cabbage). So far, the first few hits (excluding the ones that aren’t from actual UN sites) have invariably worn a right-wing and/or nationalist agenda on their sleeves, usually blended with an overdose of over-the-counter paranoia. One site even outlined the ‘ostensibly’ altruistic social, economic and environmental goals of Agenda 21 and then immediately, without any substantiation whatsoever, dismissed the whole thing as Marxism.

This isn’t the sort of thing which makes me want to devote much time or patience to the matter, but I will have another poke around. I’ll get back to you.

Franco

#237 — Dr Dreadful

“This isn’t the sort of thing which makes me want to devote much time or patience to the matter.”

I understand your reluctance to such sites, especial if they are on the right. Regardless, those are only their one exit summaries of there own research for better or worse.

It is better to take the front door approach and get it from the house mouth, and its supports rather then its critics to make up your own mind. It’s just that you have to find its elitist proponents speaking about it to get a grasps of the total planed physiological transformation of the way government at national, state, and local levels in order to implement Agenda 21. It is in no way a forced compliance, it is as means to physiologically transform sociality to institute it upon themselves for love of the environment. Anyone objecting must be seen as a threat to the whole.

The main reason I do not agree with Agenada 21 is because it is an elitist manifestation for mass control by the few (elected by no one but themselves and accountable to no one but themselves) in this grand theory of “community-ism” or we are all doomed, at the direct expanse of the individual and his rights. Conformity is health for the community, and individualism is unhealthy to the community. Dose this sound familiar?

You may find the following link interesting as it is an American elitist supporting Agenda 21 who is addressing a meeting in the UK of like minded elitists. Note, you will not see radially worded statements, it is the underlaying mindset and tone that reveals the scope and breath of their planning transformation and dominance at ever level of socity that rived throughout it.

Franco, you do realize that H. sapiens is a communal, not a solitary, species, don’t you? And that the rights of the individual, while extremely precious, are not the key to survival?

Go back and read your history books. America was not built by rugged individualists, however much some believe that it was.

More immediately dangerous than this attitude, though, is the one that regards anything not thought of and directed by Americans as a Bad Idea.

Presumably you’ve attended some meetings in your time and know what an agenda is: a plan or outline of proceedings, aimed at preventing the meeting from degenerating into a free-for-all. (Doesn’t always work, of course!) And that’s really all Agenda 21 is: a guidebook or manual for sustainable development. There’s nothing coercive or compulsory about it, as you recognize but do not appreciate.

No: it’s not the U.S. agenda, therefore it’s a vast sinister international conspiracy. (Even more extraordinary, a conspiracy by a global organization so powerful and effective that it can’t even prevent a minor tribal war from getting out of hand?!?)

Living in broadly pro-American Chile you may not fully appreciate this, but I’m afraid that to much of the world, Reagan’s ‘shining city on a hill’ is more like the homeowner who leaves his security lights blazing all night and keeps the neighbors awake.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

H. sapiens is a communal, not a solitary, species. . . . So very true! That may be very helpful when the next ice age (apparently a Russian, not a U.S. invention, see comment # 233) comes. We are already training our five pups (also a communal species) to huddle with us.

Dan(Miller)

http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

Dan –

May I recommend that we look at articles from Pravda with a jaded eye….

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Glen,

But but but . . . Pravda is a foreign, Communist rag, which doubtless should enhance it’s credibility.

Actually, I try pretty hard to look at all articles with a jaded eye, and not only those with which I am disposed to disagree.

Dan(Miller)

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Dan,

You have noticed all those ice sheets and glaciers lying around, haven’t you? (Or possibly not, down there in chilly Panama!)

We’re in an ice age. It just happens to be a relatively warm part of one right now (an interglacial), which has enabled us monkeys to flourish.

The snag is that our infrastructure and economy, which we have developed at a quite ridiculous speed (cosmically speaking) is highly dependent on the climate staying more or less right where it is. We won’t have any more fun if it gets hotter than we will if it reverts to icy business as usual.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

BTW, when you have finished with your jaded eye, can I purchase it from you? Is it good quality jade? I have an e-mail correspondent in Nigeria who may consider it as good collateral for an estate distribution plan he has proposed.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Doc,

It is of the very highest quality Colombian jade, with high-tech optics certified by Herr Professor Dusseldorf von Warmenschnausen, a well known mineralogist, climatologist and financial adviser. I shall probably need it for a while. However, I can possibly see my way clear to bequeath it to you right now*, in exchange for an immediate and substantial share of the Nigerian estate distribution.

As to climate change, I am delighted that you have finally seen the beauty of the “Conservative” position, and recognize that change is bad.

Dan(Miller)

*This offer is good only for the next ten minutes; call now. Our operators are standing by.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Yes indeed, Dan, I have seen the error of my ways. You’ll be pleased to know that I have cancelled my membership of Moveon.org and my subscription to The Nation, have written strongly-worded letters to all 59585958 59 Democratic senators urging their immediate resignation, have thrown my TV remote into a vat of battery acid so that the set cannot now be changed from Fox News, have purchased a significant quantity of illegal armaments and combat fatigues and a ranch in rural Montana (tautology alert!), and have instructed my associates to direct anyone who looks as if they might be a socialist, a Jew, a homosexual, an atheist, a Muslim or a vegan into a large and alarmingly concrete sports stadium.

…Have I gone too far?

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

No, Doc you haven’t. It’s just a good start. I am, however, so pleased with your metamorphosis that I have extended the generous offer made in my comment # 245 for an additional ten minutes, starting now.

Dan(Miller)

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Strangelove

Unfortunately, Dan, due to my recent right-wing metamorphosis I am now constitutionally unable to do business with anyone who does not look exactly like me. Consequently I have discontinued my business association with Mr Obi, who apparently once used an elevator that had been serviced by Albert Einstein’s seventh cousin’s hairdresser’s roommate. I must therefore decline the jade. If, however, you have access to any substance that might help to control this severe nervous twitch in my right arm, I am prepared to negotiate terms. Just sign on this Maginot line.

Hm. Did anyone happen to notice a similarity between Dubya and a certain pilot heroically riding a nuke dropped from a B-52 in Dr. Strangelove?

Yeee-hah!

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

They even look alike. Dubya should be proud!

Cindy D

Just look what you’ve done now Dan(Miller) Ollie.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

I would ask who Ollie might be, but I am now preparing to go to France to sign something for Doc. On the other hand, it might be better to ask the question since I despise all things French and don’t really want to go.

The carbon footprint of Barack Obama’s inauguration could exceed 575 million pounds of CO2. According to the Institute for Liberty, it would take the average U.S. household nearly 60,000 years of naughty ecological behavior to produce a carbon footprint equal to the largest self-congratulatory event in the history of humankind.

But it’s OK, because algore, through his newly formed I’ll-get-richer-trading-in-Global-Warming-issues-I-set-up company, will sell carbon offsets to the government, and then the inaugural CO2 won’t count.

“The irony! The irony!” (With a tip o’ me titfer to Joseph Conrad)

http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

To hell with the carbon footprint, I’m offended by the $150 million pricetag.

Dave

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Bread and circuses normally produce big carbon footprints. Although the inauguration will not display large numbers of flatulent elephants* prominently, many member of the Congress (most of them donkeys) are likely to be present.

The $150,000,000 price tag may seem excessive to some, but it will certainly provide badly needed economic stimuli — even more if it snows in Washington, which would be a good thing.

Dan(Miller)

*There is absolutely no truth to the rumor being spread by the vast right wing conspiracy that a ritual elephant sacrifice will be the highlight of the ceremony.

Brunelleschi

Why would the Christian right care about the mess they make of the Earth while they make money?

They think they are going to Heaven where it’s clean.

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

Doc says in comment #239…More immediately dangerous than this attitude, though, is the one that regards anything not thought of and directed by Americans as a Bad Idea.

I guess this is compared to the typical European attitude that says that anything thought of and directed by Americans IS a bad idea???

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Andy,

There is ample disproof of both Doc’s and your comments: The internet and man made global warming were both invented by an American (a former Vice President, no less) and both seem to be widely accepted in both the U.S. and in Europe. As the situation worsens, the acceptance will increase. This is true despite the current chilling trend, as a result of which “In Alaska, they’re using a witch’s tit to heat their food.”

Dan(Miller)

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

The thing is, Andy, the attitude Doc describes is far more common, whereas the one you describe is just held by a vocal minority.

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

I always heard they were cold Dan…like a well diggers ass! But I guess it is all relative…

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

Personally, if it’s not MY idea, it probably stinks…that’s a much more American attitude than the one Doc spewed earlier.

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

Personally, if it’s not MY idea, it probably stinks…

There you go, Andy, I fixed up your remark for ya!

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

I’m assuming that was supposed to be funny?

I’ve always had a little trouble with that British sense of humor…you know…spam spam spam spam and all.

You have a bad attitude CR!

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

If you haven’t got the spam thing yet, there’s not much hope for ya, Andy, that was the 70s. We’ve moved on since then. Do try and keep up! 😉

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

All right, I may have had fun with the spam thing…but albatross?

Actually, I’ve always been a fan of British humor.

Which should help explain why I had a problem with your comment!!!

hehehe

http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

Good one! lol

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

Andy #263, this cold weather is caused by global warming. As the polar ice shelves are melting they’re like giant icecubes in a glass cooling the oceans which drive the weather.

In the summer, without the white ice to reflect sunlight and radiation back into space, it’s absorbed into the dark seas warming them like sunlight on a car’s black vinal top.

As the earth rotates back into winter and is farther from the sun, the ice sheets that melted the previous summer take over again playing hell with the jetstream (sorry) which is where our weather is coming from. Instead of it traveling laterally, the warmth at the poles is pushing the jetstream in a more north/south configuration gathering cold air from the poles, instead of West/East.

but of course that’s only my opinion.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Just to clarify the hurricane thing, I believe the prevailing view of hurricane experts is that they are likely to become less frequent, but more powerful.

Clavos

the warmth at the poles is pushing the jetstream in a more north/south configuration gathering cold air from the poles, instead of West/East.

The change in the position and direction of the Jet Stream is a normal seasonal variation, which has nothing to do with GW. According to The Weather Channel:

Exactly where in the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere the jet stream can be found depends on the season. From December through February, the sun’s rays are heavily concentrated in the Southern Hemisphere, causing the Northern Hemisphere to cool down. It is winter in the Northern Hemisphere and summer in the Southern Hemisphere.

During the winter, the jet stream continuously separates cold polar air masses to the north from warm tropical air masses to the south.

Therefore, during the Northern Hemispheric winter, the polar jet dips south across the lower third of the United States. The strength of these winds helps to bring colder air into an area of previously warm air and is instrumental in deepening low pressure systems.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Andy,

The Marshall Plan, the internet* and Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure are all examples of American ideas which are highly thought of in Europe. The Iraq War, Hershey’s ‘chocolate’ and Jessica Simpson, not so much.

* Although not the World Wide Web, which was invented by a Brit and is therefore the best idea ever conceived.

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

As the seas are warmer at winter because of the loss of most of the polar ice, the 1-5 degree temperature variance causes a high pressure zone over the poles pushing it southward more than it normally would… which is why we’re getting more cold air pushed southward on us.

I wouldn’t expect you to understand that living in Florida and all.

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

from NASA

A NASA researcher has found unusually high levels of protective upper atmospheric ozone in the Arctic as a result of a rare sudden warming during the early winter of 1998.
“There are several factors that control polar ozone including air temperature in the stratosphere, the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), and the timing and strength of large atmospheric waves that bring ozone to the poles from the tropics,” said Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and author of a paper being presented at the American Geophysical Union’s spring meeting in Washington.

During the wintertime, as the temperatures drop, winds swirl around the poles and form a vortex. The atmospheric circulation brings ozone from the upper to the lower stratosphere, where temperatures are colder. The stronger the vortex, the less ozone is transported to the cold lower stratosphere, where breakdown of ozone by PSCs can occur.

Clavos

I wouldn’t expect you to understand that living in Florida and all.

Cute Non Sequitur, Jet.

As a lifelong mariner, I have had an equally long and profound interest in meteorology, and have studied it quite a bit. This is one of the principal reasons I question the extent to which GW is anthropogenic.

Actually, Northern Hemisphere seas are colder, not warmer, during the Northern Hemisphere winter. This is true even here in Florida, where the ocean temperatures off Miami Beach drop from 80-86 in summer to 71-73 in january and February.

FYI, we are enjoying a cool snap right now, which is the dying last remnants of the Alberta Clipper which ravaged the Midwest a few days ago. This too, is a normal winter weather occurrence; the temperature today is in the very pleasant high sixties, enabling us to turn off the A/C and open the windows.

Clavos

Where’s your link to the NASA quote, Jet?

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

Oh well of course Clavos, if I didn’t include a link I must be lying. Your arogance knows no bound!

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

Strahan’s research is supported by earlier findings by NASA’s Paul Newman in 2001 that said large-scale atmospheric waves carry ozone from the equator to the poles. Typically, ozone “piles up” in the stratosphere over the tropics. When the large-scale waves are stronger and occur more often than usual, they push more low latitude air northward, bringing high ozone and warmer temperatures with them to the poles.
According to Newman, “In cold years like 1997, weaker, and less frequent waves reduced the effectiveness of the Arctic heat engine and cooled the stratosphere, making conditions just right for ozone destruction.”
Strahan explained that in a cold year, with weaker waves, polar ozone levels get a “double whammy,” because less ozone gets transported to the poles from the tropics because temperatures are lower, allowing more PSCs form, which leads to more ozone loss.

Equatorial Ozone traveling to and from the poles is directly effected by the temperature at the poles-as evidenced by less and less ice.

warmer temperatures create higher pressure pushing air masses farther south than usual resulting in less of it.

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

Oh, I get what you’re doing, you’re trying to trick me into writing another science/astronomy article!

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

I love science/astronomy articles! You’d better hurry up though – after next week you won’t feel like writing anything other than ‘Aaaargh’ for a while!

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Promise you’ll give us an update as soon as you’re able though.

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

If you don’t hear from me by say the end of February, assume the worst. That’s not self pity, that realistic. They’re not giving me very good odds, but if I survive they flattened me by predicting I’d be home in a matter of days not weeks!

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

Warning to all, there are ways to build a muscular body… 10 years ago I chose the wrong one.

Clavos

Re #280:

It’s an interesting article, Jet, but nowhere does it attribute the movement of air masses to GW, much less to anthropogenic GW.

In fact, the article says only this:

A NASA researcher has found unusually high levels of protective upper atmospheric ozone in the Arctic as a result of a rare sudden warming during the early winter of 1998…

…Strahan said that it is important to keep in mind that even without ozone loss by PSCs, the amount of ozone in the Arctic stratosphere varies from year to year depending on the strength of the large-scale waves and the quantity of ozone they bring.

And Jet, you have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions about other people’s meanings. I asked for the link, not because I thought you were lying about it, but because I wanted to read the entire article.

It is customary to link when quoting from another, online document.

One last point: between government agencies, I find NOAA’s work in regard to the atmosphere and its related phenomena to be far more comprehensive and definitive than NASA’s.

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

Well of course you do Clavos, it agrees with you.

As for the article, I posted portions of it to confuse you into not realizing (as you constantly point out) that I have no idea what I’m talking about.

You silly

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

@ #289:

Since you’ll have just had your ribcage sawed open and wired shut, I wouldn’t be encouraging anyone to flatten you just yet!

@ #290:

Well, actually, there are three ways, but I presume you rejected the method which entails sticking lumps of Playdough on your arms and chest and passing them off as muscle as unworkable. Apart from anything else, they have a habit of falling off when you take a shower.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Sorry, I’m in a silly mood this afternoon. Hope I’m not not helping!

http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

Doc, my brother in law had the same proceedure and a week later the wire started poking through his skin,

(shudder) I don’t even want to think about it.

You want to help? here’s how you can help, don’t make me laugh after this Friday.

Oh that was silly wasn’t it? It’s great that there are still some who care, that helps a lot.

http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

I take offense to the Hershey’s chocolate remark doc. Bill and Ted? Really?

I liked Jessica, until she started hanging out with the cowgirl! Actually, it might have been better if she’d hung out with the cowgirls!

And as for all the atmospheric training some are trying to give in these comments here…think about this for a minute. The people you’re trying to convince, me and a few others, have problems believing people with a lot more letters after their names than any of you, so why do you even try? If I don’t believe the BS that Algore says, why the fuck would I believe any of you? I mean, I’m a fairly open minded guy…but bullshit is still bullshit!

I watched 3 local weather reports this morning and they were all different!

And Michael Strahan and Paul Newman are NOT meterologists! As a matter of fact, didn’t Paul Newman just die? And Strahan retired last year after he won the Superbowl! Jeez!

pablo

I thought I would share several quotes that I came across recently by some of the purveyors of the great Global Warming Hoax. Incidentally Al Gore of Blood & Gore LTD is looking more and more like the liar and globalist he really is in the latest Newsweek article about him.

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
– Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.”
– Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points, despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.”
– Dr James Hansen,
NASA researcher

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Revenge of Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“This planet is on course for a catastrophe. The existence of Life itself is at stake.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
Principal Research Scientist

“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.”
– Barack Obama,
US President

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late.”
– Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Governor of California

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change should be seen as the greatest challenge to ever face mankind.”
– Prince Charles

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change makes us all global citizens, we are truly all in this together.”
– Gordon Brown,
British Prime Minister

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We have reached the critical moment of decision on climate change. Failure to act to now would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible. We urgently require a global environmental revolution.”
– Tony Blair,
former British PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

Yes there is a debate on this issue, and the Chicken Littles of the world are starting to lose it.

And from the Wall Street Journal an article on the Copenhagen Treaty which is paving the way for The New World Order, just for you Clavos :).

Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?

The rest of you sheople can now go back to sleep! baaa-baaaa.

turtles

ur an idiot i couldnt even read the whole thing because i was halfway thru the second page and i was bored to death with u repeating urself with all these questions that u cant answer. ur retarded

tara

i think there is global warming even tho i am a christian. i say this because, the trash we burn and through away createes gases and warms our atomosphere, i dont believe earth will blow up thoug